|jangbones - 2013-01-13 |
Slaves had guns, they hunted to supplement their diet.
Anyway, militaries now have drones and grenades and tanks and rocket launchers, why aren't those legal for private citizens?
" Slaves had guns, they hunted to supplement their diet."
How widespread was that practice, though? I've heard that certain "progressive" slave owners, like George Washington, allowed their slaves to own guns, but it was my understanding that this was never the norm, and that slave gun ownership was expressly forbidden by the late 18th/ early 19th century for just this reason - to prevent, or at least cool the threat of, slave uprisings. I could be wrong, and I admit I don't know much about early Colonial slave gun control policies. I was GOING to comment on the video to the effect of: "This line of argument was true when the Black Panthers said it, and it's still true coming from Larry Squintface", but it would put a new spin on things if slave plantations of the 17th century were awash in firearms.
As for the tanks bit, that's actually quite similar to one of Ayn Rand's scathing critiques of libertarianism.* The idea that weapon ownership is as much about defending the people against their own rulers as it is about protecting them from external threats is not new; the decentralization of force is the ultimate check against potential abuses of power, a sort of "people's veto" that forms the cornerstone of revolutionary and liberal thought. The basic soundness of that principle hasn't changed, and on that, at least, I believe we can all agree.
What HAS changed, at least according to Ayn Rand, is the sheer scale of power wielded by the state. There is now an almost unbelievable imbalance in the relationship between the state's force potential and the people's capacity for resistance. What good would your handgun do, when a hypothetical tyrant will be bringing tanks, bombers, and low yield nuclear missiles to the fight? The idea that weapon ownership rights can still protect our liberty is thus, according to her, no longer relevant.
I don't believe she's correct, however. The force discrepancy between the modern state and it's charges is certainly problematic, and there's no practical solution to that - the military industrial complex is far too sophisticated for individual citizens to approximate, and as cool as tanks are (even the notoriously Orwellian UK allows it's citizens to own demilitarized tanks), giving everyone a tank wouldn't work. But if there's anything we've learned from conflict in the last sixty years, it's that sheer military resources can't win fights; so long as the will remains and SOME resources are available, the capacity for resistance will be found.
(Please note, I'm not trying to imply that we should go all Pack Your Bags/ Red Dawn here. The US government is still a long way from tyranny, domestically speaking, and it's important to remember that. But just because weapon ownership doesn't seem pressing *now*, it does not follow that we needn't be concerned about the further erosion of our civil liberties, any more than Bush 's attacks on due process and legal restraint in evidence gathering techniques were OK because they were "only being used on the bad guys". It's not OUR government we need to be concerned about, it's the government that's going to be in power ten, twenty, a hundred years from now.)
*funnily enough, Rand HATED libertarians, and bitched about them at some length. I know the Hive Mind would be amused by catfights between Objectivists and libertarians, so I could dredge up some quotes if you like.
I read a study a while ago (it was about calorie counts and labor) that researched the amount of food that slave owners supplied to their slaves. Along with some additional information concerning animal populations (deer, raccoons, possums, and other feed animals), the study presented a lot of evidence that slaves hunted extensively. I looked a little but I can't find the damn thing.
You don't have to tell me that Ayn Rand loathed libertarians. I actually admire some of the concepts of objectivism, but its current incarnation in American politics is a cafeteria version that conveniently leaves out a lot of vital information. American objectivists are actually elitists, those born into priviledge and only interested in preserving it, and their coterie of self-deluded sycophants.
The state always has more resources than their populace and always will. Certain members of every population will always live like society is just one step away from armed insurrection and revolution. Fuck em, their minds are worthless. If a need for real revolution actually ever comes about, morons with hunting rifles are not going to matter in the equation.
Rand vs. Libertarians have already been quoted extensively in the Baleen v. Pseudo-Libertarian wars of 2010. I like quoting Rand to capital-L libertarians who worship her because it makes them angry, but in actuality Rand didn't give a shit. She was angry that Rothbard was stealing her thunder and sorta plagiarizing, but all in all the only thing she cared about was selling books and remaining relevant. Being embraced by the John Birch Society was not going to make her money.
Anyway, if you're talking about African slaves hunting you have to talk about where they ended up.
If it's Louisiana, there's a good chance they were hunting and they ended up free and bought their own slaves, at some point. By the middle of the 19th century, 20,000 slaves were owned by blacks in this country, almost all in Louisiana. 1 out of 4 black families in New Orleans owned a slave! And one of the richest, if not the richest family in Louisiana leading up to the Civil War, was a black family that owned over 100 slaves. I'm sure there were plenty of black people that hunted in America despite various regional gun bans...
If you are talking about Haiti in the same period, they did not hunt. They were given just enough food, usually beans and semi-rotting meat, to last them for two years of labor, then they died in the sun and were thrown in pits like animals. The profit margins were so high in the sugar business that slavers had calculated profit and loss to pounds of beans per slave. I doubt these people were hunting much.
|Binro the Heretic - 2013-01-13 |
And if the natives had guns (and a resistance to the deadly plagues the European explorers brought over) we'd all be speaking Cherokee.
Alternate history is fun!
|Adham Nu'man - 2013-01-13 |
If the producer of FPS Russia had been armed, he'd still be alive.
If the Nazis had been armed, they'd still be around.
Way to miss a point! (it's an important one too)
Yes I missed the point wherein an oppressed race that was outnumbered and traded like cattle would have theoretically liberated themselves if guns had magically appeared in their hands when huge, well equipped, technologically advanced and trained armies failed in protecting themselves from an equivalent or similar firepower and organizational structure.
Man makes shitty analogies, I am guilty for extrapolating on said shitty analogies. I miss point.
|TimidAres - 2013-01-13 |
Nat Turner is violently thrashing in his grave.
|Dread Pirate Roberts - 2013-01-13 |
Give me a fucking break. Slavery wasn't just white people putting handcuffs on black people. West Africans sold their own people into slavery - using their own guns that Europeans sold to them for slaves. If we're ever to get over racism, people have to come to grips with the fact that slavery wasn't racially motivated, it was industrially motivated. There were asian slaves, white slaves, and black slaves and native american slaves.
Sure, none of them would've been slaves if they'd been able to adequately defend themselves, but we're talking about people in conquered countries, poor countries, and even native non-industrialized tribal communities. Get the fuck over it and just realize that guns kill people and we're past the days when 'the people' need to shoot at their government in order to maintain the status quo of their freedom.
Slavery is as "black and white" (pun intended) as people seem to think it is, there were many contributing factors most people dont, or wont, discuss.
Also, nations and empires all throughout history have used slaves, why do I keep hearing about this countries' damning history of slavery and nothing else?
1) It's our country, so it's of interest to us.
2) We're still dealing with the repercussions of slavery. Yeah, General Lee surrendered nearly 150 years ago, but blacks in much of the country were kept just one step away from slavery for 100 years after that. It's still less than 50 years since the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and half the country is still pissed about that -- this past election saw Republicans trying to circumvent the Voting Rights Act.
Oh, dread pirate roberts, I honestly had you pegged for someone smarter.
But they did it too! is the number one excuse of every privileged white guy who gets caught out didn't you know that gmork?
|TimidAres - 2013-01-13 |
There we go.
|spikestoyiu - 2013-01-13 |
WELL IF LINCOLN HAD A GUN... well, I guess he'd still be dead because he got shot from behind, but whatever.
|Bort - 2013-01-13 |
If Goku had fallen in love with Anne Franke, he could have beaten up Hitler and they could have run away together.
|Adham Nu'man - 2013-01-13 |
Guns are why the Bloods and Crips are the free-est black people in America.
|Vaidency - 2013-01-13 |
This is really the worst kind of historical reductionism.
As people above have already mentioned, many west Africans were complicit in the slave trade and did use guns to round up other Africans and sell them. There were also many armed slave revolts, the most famous of which was Nat Turner's, which failed and lead to severe retribution. Even the successful slave revolt in Haiti hardly lead to a peaceful or pleasant social environment for the freed slaves as their country was promptly blacklisted by most of the world.
The history of sub-Saharan Africa and its people over the last 500 years of one of imperial conquest and economic subjugation. That is something individuals, no matter how well armed, are powerless against.
I've seen gun nuts floating similar arguments the last few days about Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia disarmed their citizenry and if only they hadn't the genocides both regimes committed might have been averted. This is bullshit for several reasons (the Nazis actually restored private gun ownership rights to most German citizens that had been stripped by the Treaty of Versailles) but mostly because both of those governments were militarized dictatorships fully willing to turn their armies on their own citizens. If more individuals had been armed it only would have given them the excuse they wanted sooner.
|FABIO - 2013-01-13 |
If the Confederacy had guns...
|Void 71 - 2013-01-13 |
Also, if every nerd had an assault rifle, they wouldn't get bullied and there wouldn't be any school shootings.
The Right seems to envision that if everyone had guns, we'd have a global, perpetual mexican standoff.
Though the actual Mexicans wouldn't be allowed to have guns.
|Gmork - 2013-01-13 |
The logical fallacy you all make is assuming that the responsible, thinking side of the second amendment supporters (why yes, they do exist, prejudiced poe-type person!) would use the argument "If _blank_ had guns..."
Anybody with half a brain can tell you HAVING a gun doesn't guarantee anything about safety. That's an argument that can only be made by someone completely rabid and without reason. The media doesn't want to talk to responsible gun owners who speak poignantly and passionately about anything. They want larry the cable guy and alex jones on the tip of everyone's tongue - not a responsible family man with an encyclopedic knowledge of gun law and gun statistics who can speak coherently about the subject.
It's funny how far removed you think you are from history. Have some humility.
Well then, quit letting the Larry Wards and Wayne LaPierres speak for you. Tell THEM to shut the fuck up. "The media" didn't put Wayne LaPierre in charge of the NRA. "The media" doesn't compel people to join the NRA. You and yours let guys like Ward and LaPierre do the talking and the leading, and when they start sounding a little too crazy even for you, you suddenly try to distance yourself from them, and blame it all on "the media".
"Come to me, sir," Harry moaned through pink, kiss-swollen lips – which were just as pink and swollen as the arousal stirring between his legs. He raised his arms above his head, interlacing his fingers and locking them together. His head lolled heavily on his shoulders as he spread his legs open for him wantonly. Snape could feel his own cock throbbing in his pants, which were growing tighter and more stifling with every passing second in his student's naked presence.
"Where do you want me?" Snape whispered, his eyes lowering pointedly to the delicious puckered entrance between Harry's thighs. He had to lean in closer, if possible, to hear the almost inaudible sigh.
"H-here," came the quiet murmur and Harry finally released his hands to trail down his body, nimbly passing over his hardened nipples and lingering momentarily over his erect cock to eventually spread the cheeks over his entrance. "Put…put it here…"
Snape leaned forwards, a long finger sliding over the pinkish entrance with only very slight pressure. It had Harry jolting upwards from his position on the lush grass beneath the tree, arching flush against Snape's chest.
"Put what, exactly, Mr. Potter?" Snape drawled, shifting smugly against Harry's feverish-like body. "What do you want?"
"I want…I want your cock, Severus. P-put your cock in me!" Harry begged, tears leaking from his eyes as Snape's face darkened considerably. By this time, both their erections were as hard as ever, already reddened and leaking pre-come.
"Good boy. You shall receive a lot."
The Chairman of Gun Appreciation Day (which has considerable funding behind it) told a black woman on National Television that if her race had had guns, there would have never been any slaves...
DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M GETTING AT?
By the way I have a gun and believe people have a right to own guns. I'm with the left on this drive for further regulations because SHIT NEEDS TO GET REGULATED BETTER and the right ain't going to do it, it has nothing to do with following a party's ideology like some indoctrinated sectarian.
For the record, Gmork, I am sick and fucking tired of family men and their encyclopedic knowledge about guns. All it ever seems to boil down to is a syphilic piss-trickle of local news reports about white people shooting black people and contentious statistics about Switzerland and Australia that the Swiss and Australians don't know where they came from. And a fuckload of pedantic whackoff about what constitutes an assault rifle.
And for the rest of you, stop shrieking. Your knees are jerking so hard I'm getting sea-sick on this bench I refuse to vacate. You all sound like salivating dogs whenever a corpse with holes in it turns up. "YEAH SOMEONE SHOT TO DEATH TODAY OOOOH-RAH!" Why don't you ban your hard-ons first?
I'm fucking sick of the lot of you. Can't anyone offer some amelioration for this culture of casual and permissive violence, of which the fetishization of guns, but NOT the ownership of gun IN ITSELF, is a major factor?
No guns but slow ass shotguns, no games but Portal, no TV but Treme, crazies get help from doctors, and we all reproduce and die happy. Why the fuck not!
YES I WOULD CENSOR THIS. WHY DO YOU THINK I'M HERE?
We harp on guns because hillbillies FREAK THE FUCK OUT when you poke at that one specific subject, and let's face it, it's really, really, really fun to freak hillbillies out. You're like the kid in the class who never fails to show a reaction when you poke him.
"Can't anyone offer some amelioration for this culture of casual and permissive violence, of which the fetishization of guns, but NOT the ownership of gun IN ITSELF, is a major factor?"
Someone on here (FABIO or RoUS, I think) made a good recommendation a couple weeks ago: a Photoshop campaign of men proudly showing their assault rifles, and women making the "tiny" gesture with thumb and forefinger. Stigmatize gun owners who make a fetish of sheer firepower.
Gmork, you are stupid or trolling or something.
I think people should have guns because I don't really trust the government. I think they should have guns because, like the war on drugs, a war on guns is ridiculous.
Where I, a fairly left-wing person in most circumstances, decide to draw the line is in the worship of weapons and war, which my country suffers from considerably. It is ridiculous to assume that the 6-figure gun thefts every year are not doing more harm then the "responsible" gun owners are doing good. Of course owning guns is stupid and dangerous. Of course most Americans are too stupid to own guns. Most Americans are too stupid to vote, eat food that doesn't give them diabetes and heart failure, and not move to a place where they have to drive 15 minutes to buy anything.
So while I don't care if you want to pretend to be a patriot by misappropriating the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I think you're pathetic and sad. I think the time of gun fanatics is better spent volunteering to help people in their community, rather then cosplaying Charles Bronson in their special fantasy worlds. I am drunk.
It's not a misappropriation, and it's kinda sad to think you can't imagine a person who has a normal life that every few weeks includes a trip to the range to squeeze off a few rounds. How is it any different from archery, if the deadly tool you're practicing aim with only ever hits a target dummy?
What do you care if someone has a gun in their house, unless you plan to break into it?
wait wait.. did someone just call _me_ a hillbilly?
I'm a software engineer in california, you dope, and probably more of a liberal than you. The ONE ISSUE where we seemingly differ (because on poetv I mostly am agreeing with you guys) is gun "control". and by "control" i mean "making it LEGALLY harder but doing nothing to stop criminals from getting them).
Sorry you can't handle that a rational, thinking person could possibly sit there and defend the second amendment and it's actual intention. Do I think keeping assault rifles would put civilians on equal footing with the military? Hell no. It's not about fighting a potential war with the government, but making it NOT WORTH IT for the government if it ever thinks it can go kicking doors down. It's just a deterrent - like leaving the light on your porch at night.
Is it likely? No. Is it impossible? No, it isn't. That's all i'm doing - giving the universe the benefit of the doubt that america is not some invincible bastion of democratic righteousness - it can fall prey to the same things any other government has in history. Maybe cool it on the erosion of rights for a bit, will you?
Gmork, it's only the liberals in your head that want to ban all guns. While there are technically some in real life, they are a marginalized fringe, and have less power than, say, the folks who think Jews are a fiction created by the Catholic Church. I don't believe there's anyone on this board, much less in Congress, who wants to ban all guns.
But what a great many real actual people perceive is that, while there are legitimate reasons for gun ownership (self-defense and even just squeezy fun), there are some guns that don't have legitimate purposes in civilian society. Something like an AR-15 is designed to be especially good in a prolonged firefight (i.e. war-time conditions); but it's much more difficult to carry in a holster and then whip out when confronted by a mugger. In fact, about the only way to use it to is proper advantage is mass murder, so perhaps weapons of that nature should be subjected to greater restrictions.
And I care whether someone has a gun in their house because, as gun nuts love to point out, guns can enter the world of criminal activity through theft. Just ask Nancy Lanza. Oh wait, you can't.
By the way, the Second Amendment isn't there as a self-destruct button for the Constitution; I don't know if you understand that. The Constitution still lists treason as a crime -- the ONLY crime it lists, in fact, and punishable by death if Congress so desires -- and if you take up arms against your government, what do you suppose that is? It's certainly not Wicked Awesome Patriotism.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|