I never did have to stare down armed resistance to household duties and I did start training my sons to bear arms ~3. When I went to high school in Alaska it was not uncommon for students to bring firearms to school on the bus, so they could hunt on the hike home in season. Normal peer pressures and shenanigans were constant factors at school, including fights and such, but no one ever threatened anyone with guns.
Guns are tools, and tools are useful for specific jobs. Guns are for killing, not for competing over Mary Jane's rotten crotch or the like. When kids are raised to be competent with tools like guns, cars, and chainsaws, they tend not to misuse or abuse those tools at all.
It's the incompetent you have to watch out for.
Edit: I should add that I started firearms training ~3, Chainsaws ~8, and cars ~10. This reflected the relative dangers and difficulty of handling each type of tool, and how necessary they were to my sons. Firearms are simple, easy, and utterly critical to survival. Kids are competent to survive under fire from an early age, and this is revealed in the history of humanity in the fossil record.
I guess it makes sense.
If everyone, including the gays and the hippies and the SJW's and the homeless lunatics all had a six-shooter strapped to their belt, then nobody would ever be the victim of a crime.
Remember the good-old-days when we'd just shoot people we didn't like?
I mean, look, I understand that in smaller communities where people actually know each other, it's easier to build trust with your neighbors. And teaching children responsible tool use might be a reasonable option for specific parents and specific children.
I just don't think that giving everyone a gun is going to make you safer.
There are too many lunatics already.
The last thing we need is to make them even more deadly.
It would be nice if every parent trusted their child with a loaded weapon.
I just don't see that as being realistic.
then
You clearly aren't thinking rationally on this topic, since you're contradicting yourself. You insinuated that my history wasn't true. Why would you have to believe I was lying rather than agree that being armed isn't dangerous? You also insinuated that strapping responsible people means that lunatics would be strapped too. You're being silly.
I note you degraded what I did say to fit into the gungrabber narrative. I don't advocate just handing out guns. I advocate what I did, which is to train people to use guns from an early age.
You worry about lunatics, but that is a strawman. Lunatics don't just suddenly appear. They've been lived with all their lives, and the people that deal with them daily don't just hand them guns. Except for the FBI, which has been caught over and over again preying on mentally challenged people in their efforts to create terrorists. Again, you've been unconsciously adopting propaganda rather than actually considering the matter.
Here's the bald truth: humanity rules itself, and always has. Folks want to delegate the dirty work of integrity and security to others so they can just lay back, read magazines and eat bon bons, but that's neither responsible nor safe.
Human beings maintain their own security, and those as delegate it to others become dependents on those others. Don't be a dependent. Be a sovereign.
It's your destiny.
Edit: you raise the strawman argument that if we were armed we'd just start murdering people we don't like. Did that happen? Not much, because most people aren't homocidal maniacs. Are you a homocidal maniac? Would you just shoot people you didn't like?
You clearly haven't been trained how to use firearms, or you'd know damn well that you wouldn't. If you would, why the hell should I care what a homocidal maniac thinks? Think about these things and learn about them before you make declarative statements and you'll be able to be taken seriously.
Not even close.
I believe you 100%.
Well, then explain your feeling that it couldn't work, because it did. Psychos didn't gun their fellow students down.
I already mentioned that community trust is easier to establish in smaller, stable communities.
I have no doubt that it works in certain places.
What I doubt is that it works everywhere.
In the town where I grew up, cops killed someone I knew for his kilo of coke, and then sold it out of the police station. Small towns aren't less corrupt and unstable than cities.
Freedom isn't dependent on the size of the community, but on the culture of the people in that community.
If possessing guns deranges city folk, then cities are the problem, not people. I don't think they do anything of the sort, but rather the reverse, like being a black belt enables one to not fear confrontation, and not be left with only violence to resort to. Anger is the child of fear. Security in your personal hands eliminates unnecessary fear, and enables one to rationally consider situations rather than lashing out.
An armed society is a polite society. Humanity is not a commune of peaceniks, and violence has marred civiliztion since before history began, but it is well defended people that best enjoy the peace they provide. That's the reason Colt named his .45 'the Peacemaker'.
I've heard of those who are good at cultivating life
Traveling on the road, they do not encounter rhinos or tigers
Entering into an army, they are not harmed by weapons
Rhinos have nowhere to thrust their horns
Tigers have nowhere to clasp their claws
Soldiers have nowhere to lodge their blades
Why? Because they have no place for death
I too grew up around guns, and you would see them in the back of trucks at school as well. No one was shooting the schools up, and when there were fights the person who lost either accepted their ass whoopin or they went back for a second round with their fists.
There has been much change this last half century and not liking most of it.
The rate of change is accelerating, and has been of profound consequence. A couple days ago I had occasion to visit the ER. Upon my arrival I explained that I could not lay for long, but would have to get up and walk, due to the discomfort. The nurse hemmed and hawed, but generally disapproved.
After an hour or so, I yanked the IV and informed the nurse I'd be outside. She looked frightened, but didn't call for orderlies, so I left quickly. She did let me know that if I was leaving, to sign off at the desk.
After 15 minutes or so, I went back in, and the receptionist stopped me, bade me have a seat, and went to fetch the doctor. The doctor came right in and told me he wouldn't provide me further services. Apparently he wanted to subject captives to the appropriate protocols while they were chained to a slab, and would not treat patients who were actually living, breathing, suffering people. I refrained from recommending a career move to prison medicine, where all the subects are captives, because those poor bastards have it bad enough already.
At 1:30 in the morning I was given the boot with a 25 mile walk. I much enjoyed the 8 or 9 miles I quickmarched before a good Christian gave me a ride, it being a pleasant evening, and I not being strapped down and intubated by Dr. Mengele. The staff had been discussing a covid test the whole time I was there (fortunately for the test subject it was negative) and I realized that if I gave them opportunity by asking permission, I might well end up dead from their ministrations.
Allopathic medicine was always overly hierarchical, but it's really gotten overbearing and dictatorial of late. I don't know if I will ever again use emergency services, preferring to die free rather than a forced medical test subject.
Given the present trajectory towards forced DNA alteration by that ilk, I foresee things getting violent quickly should US military forces point guns at Americans to compel them to submit.
I will much prefer to be injected with hot lead than Bill Gates private formulation.
I dearly hope we take a stand and make clear to the Satanic baby rapers intent on so enslaving us that we will kill them all if they try. I don't think anything short of absolute certainty that we will do so will stop them. They've invested decades of careful plotting and $T's to achieve that goal. It may be necessary to convince the agencies and personnel they depend on to make that happen, like health service providers and the US military, not to support that effort, before they can be stopped.
But they will be stopped, or succeed over my dead body. I am sure I am not the only American that intends to die on this hill, and I hope there are enough of us intent on freedom and prosperity, rather than sentencing our posterity to slavery and penury, to deliver that legacy to our sons and daughters.
I note that tackling the evil banksters fucking up everything good (to reduce our quality of life and convince us to accept their generous pittance of the productivity of our own hands sufficient to maintain us in desperate poverty and dependence on them) will also provide opportunity to settle the multigenerational fraudulent debt we've been saddled with, and get the teat of money out of the mouth of cravens and welfare babies. That will be utterly necessary if society is to flourish and attain to the promise nascent technology makes clear society can develop - but not while saddled with a class of worthless parasites and their zealous minions.
Just to be clear, it's banksters I refer to as worthless parasites. Welfare babies at least don't force us to become GMOs. The trust fund babies genuflecting at the feet of overlords are far worse IMHO.
Thank you.
I haven't trusted the medical community since I was a child. Sadly, my distrust has grown since becoming an adult.
Sorry you felt you had to leave, but your worries are accurate. Once under their jurisdiction any pretension of freedom one has is quickly stripped as the doctor is the authority figure while the rest of us are viewed as ignorant children who must comply, even if force is needed to make it so. They will strap you down and drug you, for your own good of course.
I agree in principle.
However, not every person is capable of defending themselves.
What do you propose we "do about" the adult homeless population that didn't happen to be born with the good luck of having a responsible parent with the foresight to teach them proper tool usage from the age of three?
If they're educable, it's never too late.
Who is going to train the homeless in the proper use of fire arms for free?
How many baseless assumptions can you fit in one sentence?
If you think doing that proves anything but your devotion to what you've been told to think, you need to give thought to why logical fallacies exist.
It remains a fact that you have no direct knowledge regarding what I may or may not have been "told to think".
I do my best to not put words in your mouth or make any claims about your life experience.
I consider myself a purist regarding ad hominem attacks.
I'm also quite certain nobody is going to train the homeless in the proper use of fire arms for free.
I mean, the homeless veterans are already trained in the proper use of fire arms, but I'm pretty sure if a cop spotted a homeless person with a gun, they'd probably be shot on sight.
What is your preferred system for deciding who is allowed to carry a weapon?
I command me. My preferred system is to be ready for lunatics packing.
As kids grow up, they are availed plentiful opportunities to reveal their character. If they present existential threats to many, they will in turn be existentially threatened. Throughout the history of humanity this has been the winnowing of chaff.
I bet you're a big fan of the Mad Max movies.
I found the first one campy enough, but not them after. I also like 'They Live', 'Caveman', and 'Mars Attacks', for the same reason.
Not because of the violence and desperation.
I DON'T want that to happen. That is why I seek to prevent it from happening, rather than embrace 'Accelerationism' to make it happen.
All my posts, comments, and reblogs are focused on availing folks with understanding of the geopolitical circumstances we are in, and encourage preventing banksters from destroying civilized society so they can become gods ruling slaves. Were your assumption correct about me and folks intent on providing nominal security to maintain their freedom and prosperity, I'd be a bankster.
Our opposition proves we are not intent on chaos and abject suffering, but on preserving society in as prosperous and felicitous a manner as we can.
It is those that seek to disarm us that seek to prey on helpless victims.
I want my peers armed and dangerous, so they can't be defenseless slaves.
I agree 100%.
What specific "assumption" do you think I'm making? I'm doing my level best to simply get a better understanding of your view of things.
I have the utmost respect for you as an individual.
Unfortunately I'm surrounded by religious fanatics on all sides and I'm not sure carrying a pistol is going to improve my "safety".
What are your impressions of Gandhi?
I guess if we're "lucky" all the homicidal maniacs are recruited by the police and military.
In 4 minutes,
In 2 minutes,
In 2 more minutes,
Now, just think if those massacred had been armed. This is why you want to be armed, and not disarmed.
Are you kidding me?
Many of those people had guns and they were either taken by surprise or overwhelmed by superior numbers or both.
Having guns is not being prepared, and guns vary in quality. Security depends on far more than tools. I'm also not convinced the victims in Tulsa were much armed at all.
You're also cherry picking, instead of rationally examining history.
You might consider the Athens rebellion in Tennessee, the American Revolution itself, or any of a number of examples of people successfully defending themselves with firearms. Do research relevant statistics and you will find personal arms are employed ten times as often to defend people as they are to commit crimes.
You're not arguing rationally. You're trying to support a position you've been told is what to think. You have no familiarity with personal security, so do not know what you're talking about. I recommend you take up some martial art, because that will enable you to understand the difference between being helpless and needing everyone to be as helpless as you are, and being secure, and wanting everyone to be as secure as you are.
That's the real difference between our philosphical positions in this matter.
Walter Francis White of the N.A.A.C.P. traveled to Tulsa from New York and reported that, although officials and undertakers said that the fatalities numbered ten white and 21 colored, he estimated the number of the dead to be 50 whites and between 150 and 200 Negroes; LINK
With an estimated 10,000 persons left homeless.
So it appears that at least a few of them were able to defend themselves.
I wish everyone was as well informed and as capable as yourself.