Follow Us 
Insider
-
Pioneering resilience efforts at the state level
-
The gap between what we see & reality has never been wider
Comments
New Forum Topics
JamesTerry: 3 days 9 hours ago
JamesTerry: 6 days 15 hours ago
Mohave: 6 days 23 hours ago
nedyne: 1 week 2 days ago
FreeNL: 1 week 2 days ago
Judd: 1 week 3 days ago
sand_puppy: 1 week 3 days ago
JamesTerry: 1 week 4 days ago
ltlredwagon: 1 week 4 days ago
Mohave: 1 week 5 days ago
Newest groups
-
A resource for planning for & reacting to the unexpected (storms, natural disasters and other shocks)
-
Members to support one another in investing endeavors
-
Preparing those people on Ise Lodge (Kettering) Northants, interested in the future post fossil fuel.
-
A meeting place for all who are interested in building or sharing a resilient lifestyle up here in the North.
-
A group to form alliances for survival
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I found Diamond's GGS as interesting but certainly not mind blowing. I'm not entirely sure he was blaming the Europeans but rather spelling out what happened, but maybe I wasn't as sensitive to his tone. I agree with you that the turns in history could have easily been any other group of people if their geographic location had been the same. Almost all major civilizations have had their imperialisitic ventures.
I'm finishing up Jeremy Rifkin's "Empathic Civilizaton." Another interesting read. He builds a narrative of how empathy evolved throughout history. There are some surprising conclusions. It's much less judgemental and tries to show how empathy evolved in relation to the development of the concept of the individual. For instance during the Roman empire, there was a surge in empathic behavior (as well as imperialistic behavior) because of the growing class of cosmopolitan middle class, which allowed people to see themselves more as individuals. This allowed individuals to empathize more with their fellow human being. You might enjoy it. Thanks again.
I have been reading, and I really, really didn't want to post, but i'm going to anyways. I have to do it quick, and this is but one point that I want to address.
jdye51, you said at some point in this conversation, that you prefer a "turn the other cheek" mind-set and referenced Jesus Christ, and His teachings. First, I think you have grossly misinterpreted the message, but that's common and since you have proclaimed that you're not necessarily a Christian (which mean you're not at all, by the way. There's no fence-riding allowed) it is understandable that you'd hear this quoted or maybe even read it yourself and think, "Hmmm....that sounds nice."
Maybe you never heard this one, though;
Jesus travels to Jerusalem for Passover, where He finds the money changers in the Temple. He becomes angry, overturning their tables, and running them out, shouting and accusing them of turning the Temple, which He calls, "my Father's house" into a den of thieves.
This is a very clear, distinct example of The Son of God, Himself, demonstrating protectiveness via violence and acting as a "warrior" when something He holds close to His heart is threatened. Jesus, was a man. A spiritual being, having a physical experience, as I believe you stated in the same post. He was as spiritual a being as one could be, yet, still human and still a man. He physiologically responded appropriately to a threat to His Father's house.
I had to make that point, and I have to jump off now. I've a lot more I'd like to say, and I may or may not. But that had to be said. Sorry, I know you all are trying to stay focused and not get all over the place!
C.J.
In addition to self defense being a fundemental value in Judeo-Christian faith, the following are a collection of quotes from other religious and civic leaders on the use of arms:
Dalai Lama XIII:“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001)
Mahatma Ghandi: “And why do I regard the British rule as a curse?…It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture, and, by the policy of disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lacking inward strength, we have been reduced by universal disarmament to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness.”
Sikhism requires it's baptized practicioners to carry the Kirpan, summed up as follows:
it is one of the five articles of faith required to be worn by baptizedSikhs.[2][3]
The word Kirpan has two roots - the first root is: Kirpa, which means "Mercy, grace, compassion, kindness" and the second root is Aan, which in turn means "Honor, grace, dignity".
Sikhs embody the qualities of a "Sant-Sipahie"—a saint-soldier. One must have control over one's internal vices and be able to be constantly immersed in virtues clarified in the Guru Granth Sahib. A Sikh must also have the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their colour, caste or creed.
These are just a few examples, but in general, faith does not demand that we allow ourselves to be victimized. Herbert Weschler's famous quote:
"the privilege of killing in self-defense derives from 'the universal judgment that there is no social interest in preserving the lives of aggressors at the cost of those of their victims"
I hope this provides some diversity to the faith argument in support for arms as both a reasonable and rational tool for people of a great many faiths.
Cheers,
Aaron
How many cheeks do you have? I have two--four if you count the ones in the back. Compassion does not equal doormat.
Like Mr, Miyagi says in The Karate Kid, "Only for defense."
Now, you're talking about issues concerning "a warlike society" and "the directionless aspects of these things causing more firearms-related crime" which go even BEYOND what I've been mentioning!
Actually, they have "resource scarcity," which is why they remain hunter-gatherers. And very likely the reason why they did not engage in "intersocial war" is because they did not have surplus resources to do so.
And there is no reference to Diamond in the article.
I wonder what the headhunting cultures in Papuna New Guinea would have said if you had happened upon them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headhunting#Southeast_Asia_and_Oceania
Or war amongst the Yanomamo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami#Violence
Now you might argue that it is "Western influence" that has led to war amongst hunter-gatherer societies. Well, since "Western influence" is all over the world now, it's too late. Pandora's box has been opened.
Poet
Read the reference to the Yanomami here:
http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-three-complementary-theories/
I forgot to add that the Yanomami is mentioned in the article shared earlier. According to the writer, it is not a hunter-gatherer group.
Dude, I really dont have time to go quid pro quo with another internet personality, but suffice to say, cultural tendencies directly tie into the rights and responsibilities of that culture.
Hunter gatherer societies have no need for resources beyond food, water and natural tools and live off the land, which has plenty of resources. Intersocial war in native American societies was common. Clearly, they had the resources to wage wars.
"Everything you've been mentioning" has been a loosely associated, vague allusion to some sort of political point you hint at expressing. Express it, then. Frankly, I just think you're a troll, as you never respond to questions asked of you, never propose solutions and only contribute loose, opinion based information that lacks factual backing, as with your rant against the arms industry some time ago.
What exactly do you see yourself offering to the conversation here?
Make a new thread and put whatever on it you want.
Aaron
I've been trying to wrap my head around the "schools as gun free zones" issue. Why remove a strong psychological deterrent to criminals/wackos that would harm our children?
I've personally found firearms and firearm education to be a path to greater individual responsibility and self-reliance. It also helped reveal the intent of this country's founders and the importance of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
My guess is that the reason behind school "gun free" zones has nothing to do with children's safety. Cue bono? If you are attempting to "educate" a generation of children about the evils of guns and people that use them, it probably doesn't help to have responsible, armed adults around as potential role models.
For some "non-gun free zone" education, a couple of PNW choices:
Insights Training at the West Coast Armory - Bellevue, WA
Firearms Academy of Seattle - Chehalis, WA
my 2 cents
this thread is still going, great job SSGT
seems to be offtrack a little,
religion has killed so many in the name of (fill in your god) ... maybe even more than the Marines..but probably not..
turn the other cheek and die, darwin rules.
hope everyone is reloading or learning the process, ammo is precious these days,
anyone been to the range lately? Lot of matches out there to test/improve your skills,
3gun, 2 gun, shotgun only, IDPA, USPSA,... get some,
stand up for your right to bear arms or the uneducated politicians will take it away,
backed by the equally biased and uneducated media,
train hard, mind and body, don't be a pos,
best of luck to all of you.
Larry
This gentleman, a former Secret Service agent, expresses my sentiments perfectly.
I agree with Ao. The real issue is not guns, it’s control. I posted about this in the Firearms Group. I’ve reproduced that post below.
---------------------------------------------------
Gun control – A clash of cultures
The gun control debate is passionate, divisive, and angry. But ultimately it is not about guns. It is about control. This is becoming the line in the sand where some people say – Enough! We won’t be pushed any further.
This is the fault line of two cultures with very different views of the world, and freedom. It will not go away, and it will be a fight to the bitter end.
To better understand this I recommend reading the remarks below. Then see the full essay.
A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone. Call it “freedom.” Because we were free, we felt free. It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.
Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged. Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we became the Hive.
Serving as little more than cubicle fodder, they could not survive a serious crisis like the first Depression. And they look to the collective, the hive, for protection. The notion of individual self-defense, whether with a fist or a Sig 9, is, you know, like scary, or, well, just wrong or macho or something. I mean, if you find an intruder in your house at night, shouldn’t you, like, call a caring adult?
Read the full essay
Travlin
I'm re-reading Mila 18. I read it when I was in high school. What feels like a life time later, I wanted to read it again. It is a story of the Warsaw ghetto during the Nazi tyranny.
It's an eye opening account of the people who defied the odds and struggled against one of the most horrific times in our human history - a time that we should all remember no matter what our heritage is.
Lynne
Dog: Your information and delivery is well spoken as well as your kind response to Sue's reference to the arms race . I was blessed with a houseful of girls which all possess their Texas CHL's and are very proficient with both their Glock 19's and Springfield XD's. I personally prefer the Kimber 1911 frame in both .45 and 9 mm. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. Ronald Reagan
I agree with Ao. The real issue is not guns, it’s control. I posted about this in the Firearms Group. I’ve reproduced that post below.
---------------------------------------------------
Gun control – A clash of cultures
The gun control debate is passionate, divisive, and angry. But ultimately it is not about guns. It is about control. This is becoming the line in the sand where some people say – Enough! We won’t be pushed any further.
This is the fault line of two cultures with very different views of the world, and freedom. It will not go away, and it will be a fight to the bitter end.
To better understand this I recommend reading the remarks below. Then see the full essay.
A staple of American self-esteem is that we Yanks are brave, free, independent, self-reliant, ruggedly individual, and disinclined to accept abuse from anyone. Call it “freedom.” Because we were free, we felt free. It was a distinct psychology, though we didn’t know it.
Things then changed. The country increasingly urbanized. So much for rugged. Self-reliance went. Few any longer can fix a car or the plumbing, grow food, hunt, bait a hook or install a new roof. Or defend themselves. To overstate barely, everyone depends on someone else, often the government, for everything. Thus we became the Hive.
Serving as little more than cubicle fodder, they could not survive a serious crisis like the first Depression. And they look to the collective, the hive, for protection. The notion of individual self-defense, whether with a fist or a Sig 9, is, you know, like scary, or, well, just wrong or macho or something. I mean, if you find an intruder in your house at night, shouldn’t you, like, call a caring adult?
Read the full essay
Travlin
Travlin,
Good essay. It's sad though that the majority in this country probably no longer know what this man is talking about. That's the way I grew up and that's the way it is up here but even here, it's changing ... just slower.
Here're some experiences I've had this past week that underscore the differences ... and this is just one week.
A person I know had his gun safe (containing both guns and other valuables including PMs) confiscated this week. His brother evidently put some items in the safe unbeknowst to him. The person's mother let the brother put the items in and the brother got in trouble with the law. But the law confiscated the good brother's safe. He'll likely get it back with legal intervention but to have a SWAT team come to your house and do this, when you are a legal law abiding citizen, is disconcerting. Can anyone say "innocent until proven guilty".?
I sent in papers this week related to a civil law suit. All told, I've spent a good 20 hours of my time already on this issue with more to come. I'm being sued by a pedestrian who ran into my car. Four witnesses found the pedestrian at fault and the police found him at fault but I'm getting sued. My insurance company is taking care of it and it'll likely be dismissed since the plaintiff's lawyer is simply taking a long shot at an out-of-court settlement but this is our litigious society. Can anyone say "trying to get something for nothing".
My office manager is going to court shortly with a patient of more than adequate financial means who we billed numerous times and was given multiple notices prior to being sent to collections. Collections made over 100 calls. He only finally responded after being notified of court action by a lawyer. He claims he was never billed or contacted. Yeah, right. Can anyone say "self responsibility"?
Had two different patients call this week asking to be seen immediately. I'm not an emergency service, these were not emergencies, and I'm booked solid all day well into the evening. What am I supposed to do ... tell the other patients that this person is more important than them and I should clear my schedule just for them? Both were mildly perturbed when the soonest we could offer them was the next day ... when I would stay late specifically to see them. Nope, they wanted it TODAY ... didn't want to wait. They had other things they had to do tomorrow. Can anyone say, "deferred gratification" and "it's not all about ME"?
After going through a review and conference call with the reviewers last week, I realize I need to raise my documentation standards even higher to ensure no questions regarding any aspect of my evaluation, treatment, or reimbursement. I'm at the point where I'm ready to walk around with a video camera on a helmet to make sure every second of my work is accounted for. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to that in the future. Can anyone say "if the monied interests can find a new way to screw you out of your hard earned money, they'll try it"?
Our local police department just got a $40,000 grant from the federal government for individual cameras on the officers (not just on the cruisers). Nice to see my tax money at work. Town and police officials seem to think the money was free because it came from the feds, not realizing that they're paying for it. Can anyone say "the government's money is my money"?
Just got a notice this week for future jury duty. I'm sure I'll have some more stories to tell after that.
I'm also going to be visiting a certain person I've corresponded with overseas. That should be even more interesting. See ya in the not too distant future.