An Armed Society Is A Polite Society

An Armed Society Is A Polite Society

This is a discussion on An Armed Society Is A Polite Society within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Hey all! Hope everything is well in your world at the present moment. I know that I have not been very active since joining but ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: An Armed Society Is A Polite Society

  1. #1
    New Member Array BefallenSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    9

    An Armed Society Is A Polite Society

    Hey all! Hope everything is well in your world at the present moment. I know that I have not been very active since joining but I would like to share a piece of writing with you guys regarding my views on the proposed Assault Weapons Ban. It is a fairly long read but any positive feedback or constructive criticism on the writing would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anyway, here goes.....

    An Armed Society Is a Polite Society


    The most common usage of the word “assault” is in its verb form which means to make a physical attack on someone or something. Since verbs are action words the gun control argument is rendered moot by the simple fact that no inanimate object has the capacity to commit assault. Placing labels on something as if it can commit an action on its own is nothing short of asinine. The function of a modern sporting rifle (AR-15) is the exact same as a Ruger Mini-14 which fires the exact same round and functions in the exact same way. The only distinction between the two is the way they look. Senator Dianne Feinstein has already admitted that her proposed “Assault Weapons Ban” will ban the sale, possession, manufacture and transfer of certain firearms based on looks alone. Does this not sound the absolute definition of ridiculous? You can have the one with a wood stock but not the one with a plastic stock, even though they do the exact same thing. It sounds pretty silly does it not?

    The previous assault weapons ban that ran from September, 13th 1994 to September, 13th 2004 is the same thing being proposed as of now, and it did not ban any firearms. It only banned certain features of the firearm. The list includes the magazine capacity, threaded muzzle, bayonet lug and collapsing stock. These features were banned but the weapons themselves were still available. The ONLY thing this accomplished was driving up prices, increase in black market activity and increased difficulty for the manufacturers of these items. This is another thing that the proposed assault weapons ban will adversely affect. Jobs! By reducing what can be produced and forcing the manufacturer to re-tool and/or entirely phase out certain operations we will then be faced by an increase in unemployment. In an already fiercely competitive job market we cannot economically support any more unemployed Americans. Not to mention that the only other citizens to be affected by these laws will be those who have the intentions of following them. In many states it is illegal to text while driving yet every day we see people breaking that law. The only thing that stands to be accomplished by making something illegal is to increase criminal activity.

    There are many people killed each year with baseball bats but there is no proposal to ban them. Why? Probably because so many honest and law abiding citizens enjoy them for sport. The same can be said of firearms. Even though the 2nd amendment was not written with hunting or sport in mind, but rather as a means of defense against an out of control tyrannical government. The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that we will never need it until someone tries to take it away. There are many purposes of a firearm. They can be used for hunting, sport and defense. It is not the fault of the people who cry for stricter gun control laws but more on the part of sensationalist news reporting. Triumph does not sell as well as tragedy which is why it is a constant stream of news when something terrible happens with a firearm, but it is barely an honorable mention when an individual defends themselves or others with one. The reason we are having these conversations is because of a national tragedy at a school and the perpetrator is essentially the only person whose name is known. This shameful reporting playing to the frail emotions and weak sense of self in the American populous is the reason these despicable monsters become overnight celebrities.

    Some places are now enacting rules that allow teachers to carry a firearm concealed to class for a measure of protection, and it is an excellent idea provided it is done correctly. If someone chooses to carry a firearm and they pass the background check to obtain that license then they should also be required to go through classroom and range training prior to carrying their arm. Also it would not hurt to have them qualify twice a year or even quarterly to prove that they are defensively competent with it. The argument here is the stricter gun control regulations are not the answer to the problems we face.

    Overshadowed by the events in Connecticut there has recently been another tragic shooting in nearby New York in which a deranged man set fire to his home to lure firefighters so that he could kill them. Two firefighters were killed and another two injured in the line of duty. The assailant left behind a note claiming that he wanted to do what he enjoyed the most, which was killing people. This monster had been released from federal prison in 1998 after serving a 17 year sentence for the bludgeoning death of his 92-year-old Grandmother, for which he was only convicted of manslaughter. His weapon of choice…..A Hammer!! First of all, why was this man only charged with Manslaughter? Secondly, why was he released from prison after being sentenced on the conviction of such a heinous crime? Those questions being asked allow me to address his most recent actions in which his weapon of choice was an AR-15. Now since he had been convicted of a felony he was legally barred from obtaining ANY firearm, let alone an AR-15. I now ask a third question surrounding this incident. If he was legally barred from obtaining firearms then how do we suppose he went about acquiring such weaponry? Could it be the fact that no one with ill intent in their heart will follow the laws of man? This is very simple really. Regardless of the legality of an item criminals will find a way to either procure or manufacture it. The man may commit the crime but we make only the object serve the sentence.

    To those who claim that we are no longer living in the “Wild West” the fact is that it could not be further from the truth. We are not as civilized as we would like to think. It matters not how many paved roads, technological advancements or high rise buildings there are to disguise the blood thirsty intent of the American populous, the fact remains that regardless of the tools used, if an individual wishes to cause harm to others they will find a way. Again, it matters not the legality by which the item was obtained because the criminal cares very little for the law. They have decided to severely injure or kill other human beings which happens to be illegal so restricting access of certain items as if they are the ones committing these heinous acts of violence again only serves to adversely affect the law abiding citizens who wish nothing more than to remain peaceful in their daily lives. As a firearm owner and advocate for the right of self-defense I wish that there were no need for firearms at all but that simply is nothing more than a utopian fantasy. The reality is that guns exist and bad people exist. Bad people will get their hands on firearms while the good law abiding citizens who fasten their seatbelt and drive the speed limit are left defenseless. I have to ask this question. If your significant other worked in a bad neighborhood and had to walk multiple blocks back their car each night would you want them armed with 911 on speed dial or a properly concealed weapon to ward off any attackers? A self-defense weapon in the hand is there on demand, whereas the police could be miles away. Law enforcement is reactive and being prepared for what may come is proactive.

    If we look at the past twenty years all mass shootings, with the exception of one or two isolated incidents, have occurred in “gun free zones” because that is where the shooter will face the least opposition. Have we ever heard of a spree killer going into a firing range, gun show, gun shop or police station? Not at all because they know that in those places people have the means to defend the area and the shooters do not want that. What they want are easy targets who have been stripped of their means to fight back. I know! The big question here is “Why am I ignoring the fact that Fort Hood was a military base?” Well I am not ignoring it and I will address it accordingly. Being a military base, the soldiers at Ft. Hood were not armed. The reason being is that they treat the base as their home and have their weapons locked in a community safe. On the battlefield they are able to remain on guard for whatever may come but on the home front they are just as defenseless as many people would want you and I. How is the military supposed to protect us from a foreign invasion if they cannot protect themselves from one within our borders?

    When running away from evil ceases to be an option then it is not only the right of the legally armed citizen to protect themselves and their brethren, but it also becomes their duty. We have a major obligation to protect one another. Some of us have heard that we win the fight by not being there, but sometimes that simply does not fall into the realm of possibility. Situational awareness is our best friend in these situations and if we can get out of it safely without firing a shot then that is excellent, but there are times in which we must use deadly force. Is it the preferred method of stopping the fight? Of course not! Any reasonable firearms advocate will tell you that they would rather it end without bloodshed but we know that there is always the chance that we simply cannot deter the criminal with the mere presence of opposition. As I mentioned earlier, in a utopian society we would not have a need for such items but the fact remains that evil exists and we cannot reason with evil. We must show force and demonstrate that we are willing to use that force should it become necessary. Evil men prey on the weak and defenseless. This ensures that their job remains easy and free of risks. If we arm ourselves and train properly then we present a high risk career choice for those evil men. Remember, in the interest of the preservation of life and limb we must never forget the following phrase. Refuse to be the victim cowering in the corner and instead choose to be the victor triumphing over evil!!
    oakchas and sensei2 like this.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,559
    Pretty good piece...

    preaching to the choir.. and the antis will not accept it...

    Shame, that.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Welcome to the forum.......

    You bring up many valid points in your statement.

    However, you reference the 1st ban didn't include certain weapons when it fact it did:
    "In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:..."
    Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Senator Feinstein's new ban is much stronger than the last one. Some of what see is seeking:
    * Ban on 120 specifically-named firearms

    * Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms
    Act.... (this will include a $200 tax for each weapon)
    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...2-ac8ca4359119
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  4. #4
    New Member Array BefallenSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    9
    Thanks for the info, Crowman. I suppose I made an oversight regarding the previous ban. It was enacted fairly early in my lifetime. On the note of the new proposal. I had actually read that just minutes after I made the inital post. Nevertheless, the information is very benificial and much apprecieated.

    Oakchas, I know I am preaching to the choir by bringing it here. I was just curious what my fellow firearm rights advoctes felt about the points made.

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array GlassWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,747
    You also may want to cite your quotations.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
    -Robert A. Heinlein

    (If you don't know who he is, I strongly suggest you reference the name. He's one of the most influential SciFi authors to have laid pen to paper. He wrote quite a few books that turned into very well-known movies. He ranks up there with Philip K. Dick, and Mary Shelley, in my opinion.)

    An armed society is a polite... at BrainyQuote
    TSKnight and Spirit51 like this.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,559
    Quote Originally Posted by BefallenSoul View Post
    Thanks for the info, Crowman. I suppose I made an oversight regarding the previous ban. It was enacted fairly early in my lifetime. On the note of the new proposal. I had actually read that just minutes after I made the inital post. Nevertheless, the information is very benificial and much apprecieated.

    Oakchas, I know I am preaching to the choir by bringing it here. I was just curious what my fellow firearm rights advoctes felt about the points made.
    Fellow firearms advocates will agree with most of your post... with the exception of a few factual matters (crowman)... and citing quotations...

    The most important thing we can do is show the antis that we aren't all "rednecks, clinging to our guns and religion." We are people, just like them (well kinda, anyway), who face the reality that bad things happen to good people, unless good people do everything in their power to stop the madness.... And that you cannot legislate against inanimate objects... or that if you do, it will not stop the evil in the world from visiting itself on innocents.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array GlassWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,747
    Here are a few more that I find relevant to the context of our gathering:

    "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

    "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

    "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives. "

    "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. "

    "It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so."

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    I have written over a hundred editorial opinion letters to many newspapers in Florida and Illinois. Many of them have dealt with pro-gun topics much the same as your piece. While a surprising majority of my Letters to the editor were published, not a single pro-gun article has appeared in print. I've repeated all the well worn cliches, the oft-quoted defenses of 2A from George Washington to the latest rock star and Hollywood icon to come out of the closet in favor of gun rights. They fall on deaf ears! There is no-one more unreasonable than an anti-gun liberal. It's like talking Klingon, they just don't get it. We would have better luck talking integration to a lynch-mob. I applaud your efforts and we definitely need to keep our message out in the open but it's an uphill battle. Good luck!
    sensei2 likes this.

  9. #9
    New Member Array BefallenSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    9
    GlassWolf,

    Thank you for pointing that out. I have heard the quote a number of times. I guess the reasoning behind using that as a working title is because it is fitting to the subject. This version of the writing is still in the first draft stages. It is something I started working on almost a week ago so there are still some things that do need to be polished, such as citations and references. I will be adding those upon my return from my upcoming trip to Ohio. As a current student I am fully aware of the importance behind citations. Surprisingly enough though, I ran this paper through a plagiarism check and it came back with a 0% similarity. Also, the other quotes mentioned are quite stellar and would add a little more reality to the overall purpose of the article. Again, thank you.

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,486
    This is an argument about Good people and Evil people.

    Good people follow laws.

    Laws place limits on what Good people can and cannot do.

    The more limits you place on Good people the harder you will make it for the Good people to protect themselves and other Good people from the Evil acts of Evil people.

    Evil people don't follow your laws.

    Evil people are not limited by your laws.

    Your laws empower Evil people by allowing the Evil people to do things that Good people are forbidden to do.

    Your laws don't help Good people.

    Your laws help Evil people.

    Your laws will make Evil people more capable than Good people.

    Your laws will cause Good people to be murdered in greater numbers than before your law existed because Good people cannot protect themselves from Evil people who you have helped become a more powerful force than the Good people.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  11. #11
    New Member Array BefallenSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    I have written over a hundred editorial opinion letters to many newspapers in Florida and Illinois. Many of them have dealt with pro-gun topics much the same as your piece. While a surprising majority of my Letters to the editor were published, not a single pro-gun article has appeared in print. I've repeated all the well worn cliches, the oft-quoted defenses of 2A from George Washington to the latest rock star and Hollywood icon to come out of the closet in favor of gun rights. They fall on deaf ears! There is no-one more unreasonable than an anti-gun liberal. It's like talking Klingon, they just don't get it. We would have better luck talking integration to a lynch-mob. I applaud your efforts and we definitely need to keep our message out in the open but it's an uphill battle. Good luck!
    I know it is a long uphill battle but the best we can do is fight it until there is no fight left. It can become incredibly arduous at times but if it is something worth fighting for then tht is what we should do. They say we should choose out battles wisely and this is one that would be wisely chosen. Of course this is nothing that has not already been said around here I am certain.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array sixgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    indiana usa
    Posts
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by BefallenSoul View Post
    Hey all! Hope everything is well in your world at the present moment. I know that I have not been very active since joining but I would like to share a piece of writing with you guys regarding my views on the proposed Assault Weapons Ban. It is a fairly long read but any positive feedback or constructive criticism on the writing would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Anyway, here goes.....

    An Armed Society Is a Polite Society
    Long post but HELL YA!!!


    The most common usage of the word “assault” is in its verb form which means to make a physical attack on someone or something. Since verbs are action words the gun control argument is rendered moot by the simple fact that no inanimate object has the capacity to commit assault. Placing labels on something as if it can commit an action on its own is nothing short of asinine. The function of a modern sporting rifle (AR-15) is the exact same as a Ruger Mini-14 which fires the exact same round and functions in the exact same way. The only distinction between the two is the way they look. Senator Dianne Feinstein has already admitted that her proposed “Assault Weapons Ban” will ban the sale, possession, manufacture and transfer of certain firearms based on looks alone. Does this not sound the absolute definition of ridiculous? You can have the one with a wood stock but not the one with a plastic stock, even though they do the exact same thing. It sounds pretty silly does it not?

    The previous assault weapons ban that ran from September, 13th 1994 to September, 13th 2004 is the same thing being proposed as of now, and it did not ban any firearms. It only banned certain features of the firearm. The list includes the magazine capacity, threaded muzzle, bayonet lug and collapsing stock. These features were banned but the weapons themselves were still available. The ONLY thing this accomplished was driving up prices, increase in black market activity and increased difficulty for the manufacturers of these items. This is another thing that the proposed assault weapons ban will adversely affect. Jobs! By reducing what can be produced and forcing the manufacturer to re-tool and/or entirely phase out certain operations we will then be faced by an increase in unemployment. In an already fiercely competitive job market we cannot economically support any more unemployed Americans. Not to mention that the only other citizens to be affected by these laws will be those who have the intentions of following them. In many states it is illegal to text while driving yet every day we see people breaking that law. The only thing that stands to be accomplished by making something illegal is to increase criminal activity.

    There are many people killed each year with baseball bats but there is no proposal to ban them. Why? Probably because so many honest and law abiding citizens enjoy them for sport. The same can be said of firearms. Even though the 2nd amendment was not written with hunting or sport in mind, but rather as a means of defense against an out of control tyrannical government. The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that we will never need it until someone tries to take it away. There are many purposes of a firearm. They can be used for hunting, sport and defense. It is not the fault of the people who cry for stricter gun control laws but more on the part of sensationalist news reporting. Triumph does not sell as well as tragedy which is why it is a constant stream of news when something terrible happens with a firearm, but it is barely an honorable mention when an individual defends themselves or others with one. The reason we are having these conversations is because of a national tragedy at a school and the perpetrator is essentially the only person whose name is known. This shameful reporting playing to the frail emotions and weak sense of self in the American populous is the reason these despicable monsters become overnight celebrities.

    Some places are now enacting rules that allow teachers to carry a firearm concealed to class for a measure of protection, and it is an excellent idea provided it is done correctly. If someone chooses to carry a firearm and they pass the background check to obtain that license then they should also be required to go through classroom and range training prior to carrying their arm. Also it would not hurt to have them qualify twice a year or even quarterly to prove that they are defensively competent with it. The argument here is the stricter gun control regulations are not the answer to the problems we face.

    Overshadowed by the events in Connecticut there has recently been another tragic shooting in nearby New York in which a deranged man set fire to his home to lure firefighters so that he could kill them. Two firefighters were killed and another two injured in the line of duty. The assailant left behind a note claiming that he wanted to do what he enjoyed the most, which was killing people. This monster had been released from federal prison in 1998 after serving a 17 year sentence for the bludgeoning death of his 92-year-old Grandmother, for which he was only convicted of manslaughter. His weapon of choice…..A Hammer!! First of all, why was this man only charged with Manslaughter? Secondly, why was he released from prison after being sentenced on the conviction of such a heinous crime? Those questions being asked allow me to address his most recent actions in which his weapon of choice was an AR-15. Now since he had been convicted of a felony he was legally barred from obtaining ANY firearm, let alone an AR-15. I now ask a third question surrounding this incident. If he was legally barred from obtaining firearms then how do we suppose he went about acquiring such weaponry? Could it be the fact that no one with ill intent in their heart will follow the laws of man? This is very simple really. Regardless of the legality of an item criminals will find a way to either procure or manufacture it. The man may commit the crime but we make only the object serve the sentence.

    To those who claim that we are no longer living in the “Wild West” the fact is that it could not be further from the truth. We are not as civilized as we would like to think. It matters not how many paved roads, technological advancements or high rise buildings there are to disguise the blood thirsty intent of the American populous, the fact remains that regardless of the tools used, if an individual wishes to cause harm to others they will find a way. Again, it matters not the legality by which the item was obtained because the criminal cares very little for the law. They have decided to severely injure or kill other human beings which happens to be illegal so restricting access of certain items as if they are the ones committing these heinous acts of violence again only serves to adversely affect the law abiding citizens who wish nothing more than to remain peaceful in their daily lives. As a firearm owner and advocate for the right of self-defense I wish that there were no need for firearms at all but that simply is nothing more than a utopian fantasy. The reality is that guns exist and bad people exist. Bad people will get their hands on firearms while the good law abiding citizens who fasten their seatbelt and drive the speed limit are left defenseless. I have to ask this question. If your significant other worked in a bad neighborhood and had to walk multiple blocks back their car each night would you want them armed with 911 on speed dial or a properly concealed weapon to ward off any attackers? A self-defense weapon in the hand is there on demand, whereas the police could be miles away. Law enforcement is reactive and being prepared for what may come is proactive.

    If we look at the past twenty years all mass shootings, with the exception of one or two isolated incidents, have occurred in “gun free zones” because that is where the shooter will face the least opposition. Have we ever heard of a spree killer going into a firing range, gun show, gun shop or police station? Not at all because they know that in those places people have the means to defend the area and the shooters do not want that. What they want are easy targets who have been stripped of their means to fight back. I know! The big question here is “Why am I ignoring the fact that Fort Hood was a military base?” Well I am not ignoring it and I will address it accordingly. Being a military base, the soldiers at Ft. Hood were not armed. The reason being is that they treat the base as their home and have their weapons locked in a community safe. On the battlefield they are able to remain on guard for whatever may come but on the home front they are just as defenseless as many people would want you and I. How is the military supposed to protect us from a foreign invasion if they cannot protect themselves from one within our borders?

    When running away from evil ceases to be an option then it is not only the right of the legally armed citizen to protect themselves and their brethren, but it also becomes their duty. We have a major obligation to protect one another. Some of us have heard that we win the fight by not being there, but sometimes that simply does not fall into the realm of possibility. Situational awareness is our best friend in these situations and if we can get out of it safely without firing a shot then that is excellent, but there are times in which we must use deadly force. Is it the preferred method of stopping the fight? Of course not! Any reasonable firearms advocate will tell you that they would rather it end without bloodshed but we know that there is always the chance that we simply cannot deter the criminal with the mere presence of opposition. As I mentioned earlier, in a utopian society we would not have a need for such items but the fact remains that evil exists and we cannot reason with evil. We must show force and demonstrate that we are willing to use that force should it become necessary. Evil men prey on the weak and defenseless. This ensures that their job remains easy and free of risks. If we arm ourselves and train properly then we present a high risk career choice for those evil men. Remember, in the interest of the preservation of life and limb we must never forget the following phrase. Refuse to be the victim cowering in the corner and instead choose to be the victor triumphing over evil!!
    Long post but HELL YA

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array GlassWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,747
    Quote Originally Posted by BefallenSoul View Post
    GlassWolf,

    Thank you for pointing that out. I have heard the quote a number of times. I guess the reasoning behind using that as a working title is because it is fitting to the subject. This version of the writing is still in the first draft stages. It is something I started working on almost a week ago so there are still some things that do need to be polished, such as citations and references. I will be adding those upon my return from my upcoming trip to Ohio. As a current student I am fully aware of the importance behind citations. Surprisingly enough though, I ran this paper through a plagiarism check and it came back with a 0% similarity. Also, the other quotes mentioned are quite stellar and would add a little more reality to the overall purpose of the article. Again, thank you.
    Hope I didn't come off as a jerk. my degrees (years ago) were in E.E. and English. Really, I'm just a huge Heinlein fan, and had some hope others may be as well. He really is a splendid author.

  14. #14
    Distinguished Member Array Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO
    Posts
    1,807

    regarding the Heinlein quote

    I agree with your ideas on AWBs, but want to comment on that quotation. Without the context, it does not mean what most think.

    The quotation appeared in Heinlein's 1942 novel Beyond This Horizon. The story concerned a future society much different from ours. Citizens who fully exercised their rights all openly carried the future equivalent of our pistols. Dueling was perfectly legal as long as no bystanders were injured, so the armed citizens were in fact very polite to each other. Any perceived slight or insult resulted in a challenge and duel on the spot. The challenged citizen had two choices: fight or wimp out and become a second-class citizen. The second-class citizen did not carry arms, wore a “brassard” to identify his status, had to let armed citizens cut in lines, etc.

    Our current US society is certainly armed, but no one could consider it polite. If a street punk insults me or a female companion, I am not allowed to shoot him. We have the arms but nothing else in common with Heinlein's truly polite society.
    Last edited by Anubis; December 29th, 2012 at 02:05 PM.

  15. #15
    Distinguished Member Array GlassWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,747
    Hearkening back to a more Victorian society ala Les Liaisons dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos.
    I do find Mr. Heinlein's quotes below to be more accurate to our current situation, to be honest:

    "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

    "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

    -Robert A Heinlein
    Spirit51 likes this.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

120 guns on feinsteins list

,

120 specifically-named firearms list

,

an armed society is a polite society

,
feinstein list of 120
,
feinstein we cant have an armed society
,
george washington an armed society is a polite society
,
hey well armed society is a polite society
,
is an armed society a more polite society?
,
quote george washington armed society
,
what are the 120 named firearms
,
why is an armed society more peaceful
,
why we need an armed society
Click on a term to search for related topics.