The Definitive Firearms Thread

Login or register to post comments Last Post 1065683 reads   4 posts
  • Tue, Mar 12, 2013 - 06:44pm

    #2931

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 274

    count placeholder

    anti-gun hysteria in schools

[quote=A. M.]There is no justification for this kind of abject fear that boys playing with things shaped like guns instantly makes them a cause for alarm. Its bred into us, as humans and males especially… Having the coordination required to hit something with a projectile has literally been a component of how humans survived for millions of years. Take their toys, they use toaster pastries. Its instinct, and it needs to be honed in a positive way. What an unbelievable mess. Aaron[/quote]

I really worry for my 4yo son and his cousin being in the US educational system.  These boys play such games all the time, often saying things like "I shot the bad guy!" or making shooting sounds while they play.  Completely normal and nothing worth being concerned about, but I foresee being called into some principal's office because my son supposedly 'threatened' another student by playing good guys vs. bad guys or something like that.  And quite possibly also being thrown into jail for putting my foot up said principal's or administrator's ass cheeky.   

We are still not certain if we will have him attending school in Mongolia or America as we are not sure how much of our time will be spent in either place over the next 5-10 years.  But if it'll be in the US I think it will have to be a private school that does not submit to this nonsensical anti-gun hysteria.

  • Tue, Mar 12, 2013 - 09:19pm

    #2932

    Aaron M

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2008

    Posts: 790

    count placeholder

    Clan Identity

This might sound misgynistic, but men naturally begin articulating and emulating 'warfare' with rival clans and devloping a sense of "good and bad" at an early age. If you take away their toy guns, they'll use sticks. Take the sticks, and it's pastries. 

With the drastic shift towards a more matriarichal society, this identity is being trod under, as women's anthropological world has been cooperation with close family units. This fundemental differences between the sexes demonstrates a massive rift in our current political environment, as generations of men who're raised in the feminine world of urbane sophistication in which a man is identified as successful by having possessions compete with more rural men who've long been epitomized by self-reliance, skill and capability. 

Teaching kids (especially boys) to be 'fearful' is a disgusting practice. Removing courage from society will sow absolutely no good, and to those who believe the trade off is worth it because these boys will grow up more intelligent – read a history text, and pick up some philosophy. 

Men – warriors – have been philosophical, courageous and capable in life for thousands of years, from Moses to Marcus Aurelius. And it's not a western or judaeo value system. Miyamoto Musashi was a warrior of matchless skill, and a devout student of philosophy, as was the Shambhalist teachings in Tibet. 

Borrwoing from Jefferey Donovan's book "The Way of Men", the primates who are dominated by a martriarichal society are generally more "caring" and this is associated with harmony, while populations of Chimpanzee (which are highly patriarichal) are more war-like, territorial and disposed to sexual division of labor. While I don't want to reach too far out into the esoteric philosophy of arms and training our boys, a Matriarichal society may have some niceity to it… but let's face it – this world isn't "nice". Biology is cruel and indifferent and the society that puts "feelings" before the ability to survive will last only as long as they can avoid being victimized. 

We are people. As long as there are people, conflict will exist. While intra-societal cooperation and caring are neat, they can be crippling during times of hardship… which is why the Chimpanzee model fits most of the dominant species on the planet…

In short, train your boys. They'll impress you with their capacity for both warriorship and virtue, and more likely than not, you'll be working *with* nature, instead of against it. 
Cheers,

Aaron

  • Wed, Mar 13, 2013 - 04:00am

    #2933

    Travlin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 15 2010

    Posts: 524

    count placeholder

    Bravo A.M.

[quote=A. M.]
This fundemental differences between the sexes demonstrates a massive rift in our current political environment, as generations of men who're raised in the feminine world of urbane sophistication in which a man is identified as successful by having possessions compete with more rural men who've long been epitomized by self-reliance, skill and capability. 

Teaching kids (especially boys) to be 'fearful' is a disgusting practice. Removing courage from society will sow absolutely no good, and to those who believe the trade off is worth it because these boys will grow up more intelligent – read a history text, and pick up some philosophy. 
 [/quote]

A.M.

You have identified one of the fundamental problems in modern US life; and yes, it is a leading cause of our political conflict and paralysis.  Both sexes have their virtues and shortcomings.  Ideally they balance each other and the combination is stronger  Shifting both sexes to an androgynous middle is not good for anyone.

When the male attributes of aggression and courage are channeled properly they result in loving men who support and protect their families.  When fundamental aspects of the nature of boys are denied you create serious problems.  I suggest that mass shootings are just one example.

Thanks for sharing your insight.  Few people seem to understand this.

Travlin

  • Wed, Mar 13, 2013 - 04:08pm

    #2934

    Aaron M

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2008

    Posts: 790

    count placeholder

    Balance

Travlin,

I agree entirely. It's not to say there isn't a place for both male and female nature, but there has been this sharp, fundemental change in how we approach nature and shape our young since women took a position of equality in the socio-political spheres of influence. 

Sure, men have been subversive, misogynistic and chauvinistic about their 'leadership' – but they never tried to force women to abandon their nature through political or social pressure. This is atrocious and I've seen several instances where young boys have been punished for playing "Good ____" vs. "Bad ____" and acting aggressive. The funny thing is, I remember those days myself. 
When boys play Good guy vs bad guy, the bad guy isn't really bad – he's an alternating role that the kid playing "good guy" uses to sharpen his skills. The kid playing bad guy isn't committed to doing bad, he just acts the part so that the good guy gets his licks in.

Misunderstanding this and denying children the establishment of any sort of delineation between right and wrong is an affront to masculinity and is tantamount to taking dolls from little girls to denude them of their nurturing instinct. 

To those who'd argue that no 'harm' comes from this nurturing, I'd digress. Emphatically. 
The modern American is told throughout their lives that they are winners, no one is better than them, there is nothing wrong with them. If they fail, they still pass. If they lose, they still get a reward.

Where is the incentive to increase one's self worth when the results are the same, win or lose?
Where is the incentive to be a "good guy" if you'll simply be labeled a 'bad guy' and punished?

When these instincts mature, stunted and deformed by the rampant statist maternalism, you get kids who have *no* concept of what it means to have their peers esteem. No concept of what it means to work hard for victory. No concept of how being "right" equates to discipline and decency. 

You get valueless, hollow youths like Adam Lanza, or James Holmes, who've totally embraced the fact that they're "bad"; they love violence. They crave it. They identify with the "bad guy", because the aspect of their nature that makes them violent has been heavily compressed and shoved into a musty psychological closet in which it must go to rot, never to be seen.

Men in general are supposed to be in touch with life and death. We're far more expendable than women, from a biological point of view. Through decadence and excess, we equal them in numbers, and as such, have become soft, opulent and out of touch with both our own nature and the nature that surrounds us.

We are being nurtured into thinking that we're something special in a world that starkly disagrees from the perspective of nature. We do not hunt for our food, nor do we slaughter our livestock. Few men have ever had any blood other than their own on their hands. The ones who do, often as not, were thrust into a situation in which they were the "bad guy" – the invader, the conquerer, the subjugator – and it damages their sense of right and wrong. This is evident in an entire generation of young veterans, who were simultaneously brought up to believe they were "good" and violence was bad. 

They never learned when and where it's appropriate. They saw it glorified, and took part in it, and now, what have they become? Many are perfectly capable of rationalizing. Many acted justly, or in defense of those who could not defend themselves. Our wars haven't been perfect, but I can tell you for every injustice you hear on the news, there are acts of kindless innumerable occurring – even in these countries at war.

The destruction of man's identity has lead us to this weak-knee'd "leadership", ambigious understanding of life and devaluation of our male culture. Boys need to be bought up with skills, with sensory stimulation (not just visual/auditory from TV and video games). They need to know what dirt feels like, get germs on their hands and in their cuts. They need to get hit, fall out of trees, catch a baseball, shoot a gun or bow, know how to climb and challenge themselves while they're young. 

Anything less is cheating them out of their nature.

Rambling off, but I feel better having said that. =D

Aaron

  • Fri, Mar 15, 2013 - 06:33pm

    #2935

    RNcarl

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 13 2008

    Posts: 179

    count placeholder

    lets ban Lacrosse

Well,

My son plays lacrosse. Teenaged boys hitting each other with sticks. "Firing" balls toward a target (the net) being guarded by… a human!  Balls wizzing by him at 70-90 mph! devil

Shoot it! Shoot it! being yelled by the coach on the field being heard by me sitting helplessly in my car!!! blush

I dunno….

wink

 

 

  • Sat, Mar 16, 2013 - 06:56pm

    #2936

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 274

    count placeholder

    instincts and conflict resolution

Aaron & Travlin-

I wholeheartedly agree, the key is not suppressing the aggressive instincts but channeling them into a useful activity.  Just as you described, my boy and his cousin do alternate in their good guy / bad guy roles regularly, and so for them it doesn't involve exclusion or nastiness or "picking on" one person it is just simply play.  And sure, in some cases when they play somebody hits a little harder than they should and one or both gets upset or angry, but even that I think has some value in having them learn to resolve conflicts.  Perhaps that is another thing we've somewhat lost, the ability to resolve conflicts or to even be willing to confront someone in the times a conflict is necessary.  It seems too many people either go to the extreme of avoiding conflict (physical or social) at all costs, or to the other extreme where they escalate conflicts far beyond what is necessary.  Sadly, I think there are people who actually like this outcome; the first because such people will suffer more abuse without standing up for themselves, and the second because such people are easily manipulated to be either bullies or thugs.  I'm not 100% convinced that this is a planned outcome of social engineering (I think it's at least as likely a unforeseen consequence of "good intentions"), but at the very least I see certain interests and people in power seeing the trend and taking advantage of it.

So getting to the next question, how do we raise our kids to channel these instincts properly without making them unwitting targets of a politically correct society gone apeshit?  Sadly, in order to get by in society I have often had to wear a different 'hat' one might say in some work and public settings.  And while I suspect my kid will have to learn this to some extent later in his life, I don't want him to HAVE to learn this compartmentalization of sorts before he's even of school age.  Psychologically speaking that may hurt him in other ways down the road.  Quite honestly I think the the best way is to avoid the public school system altogether, unless one is lucky enough to be in a community that has very limited exposure to the PC culture.  Perhaps there is a market for secular private schools who's mission is "PC-free and practical" instruction.  Heaven forbid, maybe they can revive rifle and marksmanship classes  😉

  • Sat, Mar 16, 2013 - 08:19pm

    #2937
    ao

    ao

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1038

    count placeholder

    Travlin wrote:A. M.

[quote=Travlin]

[quote=A. M.]
This fundemental differences between the sexes demonstrates a massive rift in our current political environment, as generations of men who're raised in the feminine world of urbane sophistication in which a man is identified as successful by having possessions compete with more rural men who've long been epitomized by self-reliance, skill and capability. 

Teaching kids (especially boys) to be 'fearful' is a disgusting practice. Removing courage from society will sow absolutely no good, and to those who believe the trade off is worth it because these boys will grow up more intelligent – read a history text, and pick up some philosophy. 
 [/quote]

A.M.

You have identified one of the fundamental problems in modern US life; and yes, it is a leading cause of our political conflict and paralysis.  Both sexes have their virtues and shortcomings.  Ideally they balance each other and the combination is stronger  Shifting both sexes to an androgynous middle is not good for anyone.

When the male attributes of aggression and courage are channeled properly they result in loving men who support and protect their families.  When fundamental aspects of the nature of boys are denied you create serious problems.  I suggest that mass shootings are just one example.

Thanks for sharing your insight.  Few people seem to understand this.

Travlin

[/quote]

I couldn't agree more.  Aaron hit the nail on the head.  Of course, this view is politically incorrect but again, look where political correctness doctrine comes from.  Men can be both caring, compassionate, and loving husbands, fathers, and friends while still being capable and competent warriors, able to protect their loved ones and their way of life against evil forces.  For those who think evil doesn't exist, I'm happy that you've had such a sheltered life.  Those who have been exposed to it will never forget it.

 

  • Sat, Mar 16, 2013 - 08:25pm

    #2938
    ao

    ao

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1038

    count placeholder

    A. M. wrote:Travlin, I

[quote=A. M.]

Travlin,

I agree entirely. It's not to say there isn't a place for both male and female nature, but there has been this sharp, fundemental change in how we approach nature and shape our young since women took a position of equality in the socio-political spheres of influence. 

Sure, men have been subversive, misogynistic and chauvinistic about their 'leadership' – but they never tried to force women to abandon their nature through political or social pressure. This is atrocious and I've seen several instances where young boys have been punished for playing "Good ____" vs. "Bad ____" and acting aggressive. The funny thing is, I remember those days myself. 
When boys play Good guy vs bad guy, the bad guy isn't really bad – he's an alternating role that the kid playing "good guy" uses to sharpen his skills. The kid playing bad guy isn't committed to doing bad, he just acts the part so that the good guy gets his licks in.

Misunderstanding this and denying children the establishment of any sort of delineation between right and wrong is an affront to masculinity and is tantamount to taking dolls from little girls to denude them of their nurturing instinct. 

To those who'd argue that no 'harm' comes from this nurturing, I'd digress. Emphatically. 
The modern American is told throughout their lives that they are winners, no one is better than them, there is nothing wrong with them. If they fail, they still pass. If they lose, they still get a reward.

Where is the incentive to increase one's self worth when the results are the same, win or lose?
Where is the incentive to be a "good guy" if you'll simply be labeled a 'bad guy' and punished?

When these instincts mature, stunted and deformed by the rampant statist maternalism, you get kids who have *no* concept of what it means to have their peers esteem. No concept of what it means to work hard for victory. No concept of how being "right" equates to discipline and decency. 

You get valueless, hollow youths like Adam Lanza, or James Holmes, who've totally embraced the fact that they're "bad"; they love violence. They crave it. They identify with the "bad guy", because the aspect of their nature that makes them violent has been heavily compressed and shoved into a musty psychological closet in which it must go to rot, never to be seen.

Men in general are supposed to be in touch with life and death. We're far more expendable than women, from a biological point of view. Through decadence and excess, we equal them in numbers, and as such, have become soft, opulent and out of touch with both our own nature and the nature that surrounds us.

We are being nurtured into thinking that we're something special in a world that starkly disagrees from the perspective of nature. We do not hunt for our food, nor do we slaughter our livestock. Few men have ever had any blood other than their own on their hands. The ones who do, often as not, were thrust into a situation in which they were the "bad guy" – the invader, the conquerer, the subjugator – and it damages their sense of right and wrong. This is evident in an entire generation of young veterans, who were simultaneously brought up to believe they were "good" and violence was bad. 

They never learned when and where it's appropriate. They saw it glorified, and took part in it, and now, what have they become? Many are perfectly capable of rationalizing. Many acted justly, or in defense of those who could not defend themselves. Our wars haven't been perfect, but I can tell you for every injustice you hear on the news, there are acts of kindless innumerable occurring – even in these countries at war.

The destruction of man's identity has lead us to this weak-knee'd "leadership", ambigious understanding of life and devaluation of our male culture. Boys need to be bought up with skills, with sensory stimulation (not just visual/auditory from TV and video games). They need to know what dirt feels like, get germs on their hands and in their cuts. They need to get hit, fall out of trees, catch a baseball, shoot a gun or bow, know how to climb and challenge themselves while they're young. 

Anything less is cheating them out of their nature.

Rambling off, but I feel better having said that. =D

Aaron

[/quote]

Aaron,

You weren't rambling.  You wrote a masterpiece that I'd love to see in the NY Times. Seriously, try submitting it someplace where it gets more exposure.  I know I'm circulating it on my e-mail list and I'm sure after reading it, my wife will do the same.

  • Sat, Mar 16, 2013 - 09:02pm

    #2939

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1651

    count placeholder

    Is there still a need for warriors?

Nice thread going here.  I've noticed that those who emphasize the caring, cooperative, supportive, feminine perspective (both males and females) have a hard time acknowledging the competitive and violent aspects of every day human existence.  In fact those emphasizing that femine perspective want to believe that we can eventually EVOLVE into a society that rises above competition, violence and suffering.  Based on my religious beliefs, I doubt we can ever RISE to that plane of existence.  However, the objective observer in me sees that we are not anywhere near that kind of existence today (no matter how "protected" from violence some islands of modern society may be).  In nature, I see that competition is built into life at every level (from single cell organisms to human beings).  It's almost as if some Higher Being has designed life this way.  Hmmmm.

Anyway, as long as competition seems to be built into the structure of life I'm committed to "winning" that competition when there are individuals and "forces" that would take what is mine if I don't stop them, whether what is "mine" is life itself, possessions, advantages based on skill and knowledge, etc.

I am not willing to ignore competition and violence as everyday realities because it doesn't fit with my utopian ideas of what life could be if we could all just get along.  My religious beliefs tell me a Higher Power will establish such an existence, but they also tell me we will be fighting to the death until that happens.

Have you ever seen a time lapse study of tropical reef life forms (corals, urchibns, etc.) engaged in mortal combat for survival in ultra slow motion?  Fascinating.

  • Mon, Mar 18, 2013 - 03:05pm

    #2940

    Aaron M

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2008

    Posts: 790

    count placeholder

    Warriors

AO,

Thanks for the kind words, I shored it up and submitted it to the ArtofManliness.
If they don't take it, I'm fair certain that the MSM would turn their nose up at it. After all, it's a black flag sailing against everything they stand for.

THC,
What you wrote sums up nicely how pretty much *every* man who is worth his salt feels. 
There's not much utility in a man who doesn't care if he is a victim or not. No matter your belief system, man is a half of a whole. 

Our values, the instincts we possess – lets not forget that they are responsible for no less than half of the agricultural revolution, and the various civic, cultural and intellectual revolutions that have shaped the last 10,000 years of human history. 

No doubt, some professors will be keen on over-emphasizing man's violent tendencies, but that is natural selection. It's a fundemental component of resource scarcity. It's a fundemental component of the nature that shapes every living organism on this planet.

I refuse to be whipped by a society that says that I should be a flaccid, apologetic and materialistic man who's idea of a good weekend is a manicure and a Starbucks even more than I refuse to be branded an oafish barbarian who enjoys violence.

Neither are true. 
I'm simply comfortable enough with nature to know what I am, and whether by design or circumstances, it all serves the same purpose.
Cheers,

Aaron

Viewing 10 posts - 2,931 through 2,940 (of 3,051 total)

Login or Register to post comments