A Nation of Cowards

[jazzhound]

Our new member Hummm has passed along another solid recommendation -- an article which I assume he's still unable to post himself. Here y'all go:

http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

[onehandle]

1. Originally published in a publication published by the 'Nixon Center.' nt

[paulsby]

3. iow, attack the source

as opposed to the content

[jazzhound]

4. Low tactics are the only tactics the anti-gun crowd have in their toolchest. NT

[cowman]

5. I would have a lot

more respect for them if they would cite unbiased facts instead of sources that have been debunked time after time

[jazzhound]

8. It's really simple strategy

Dr. Gary Kleck (yes -- I am an unapologetic "Kleck worshipper") points out the the strategy of the anti-gun crowd is to simply make noise, knowing that the (issue uneducated) general public will interpret the pushback as evidence that there is a rough equivalency in the quality of the arguments pro and con. Of course this is nonsense -- and discriminating lurkers on threads like these will notice a pattern and lack of quality in the "argumentation" of specious posters such as onehandle.

Kleck gets into this phenomenon in the first section of chapter two of his valuable book "Targeting Guns". The subsection is titled "All Studies are Created Equal -- Failing to Distinguish Between Technically Sound Studies and Poor Ones". This book, among others, ought
top be required reading for our Dem pols.

[Ernesto]

18. but we have functioning brains in our heads NT

[Tejas]

25. "functioning", as compared to ?

What mode of "functioning" compels you to zealously restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens yet at the same time makes you forget to restrict the funtime of worthless useless criminals?

If you're a coward, just say so and go announce your candidacy for political office.

[Ernesto]

29. How many people have you shot?

Ever been to a war?

[Tejas]

30. Your dodge of my question has "what" to do with coddling criminals?

Ever directly answered a question?



as = has

[cowman]

31. Yes

as a matter of fact I have, what does that have to do with the OP?

[onehandle]

7. I attacked?

I thought I was adding a footnote.

[PavePusher]

11. Yes. This would be the second time today. n/t

[baldguy]

13. Sources are important.

Knowing the source of a statement allows an objective researcher to gauge the statements validity. If a given source is prone to inaccuracy or outright untruthfulness (like Nixon & his followers), its reasonable to give statements from that source little or no weight. And if a particular argument is made up of nothing but such statements (e.g. tired old conservative Guns' Rights positions) they usually have little or no basis in reality.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jazzhound]

17. The primary source of the article is a private citizen.

The secondary source would be the firearms discussion board where that citizen posted the information. As rrneck and I have pointed out, many of the statements are based on feelings -- and therefore can neither be affirmed nor denied. There are, however, a number of statements by the author that can be confirmed via ABSOLUTELY UNBIASED UNASSAILABLE DATA from DOJ, FBI and BATF. This data has been posted repeatedly -- it is only your dishonesty which continues to call out for source material.

To borrow the phrase of a trusted colleague:

ARGUMENT: FAIL

[PavePusher]

19. Huh. My reply got deleted.

I guess 2+2 really doesn't equal 4, depending on the source.

My education stands corrected.

[east texas lib]

20. Da.

;-)

[PavePusher]

23. Oops...

Does my conversion count if I didn't go to an approved government camp?

It all gets so confusing... :evilgrin:

[Euromutt]

28. Of course, Nixon was vehemently anti-gun

I think he described them as an "abomination." Readily explicable, given that he did come from a Quaker background.

[Callisto32]

42. HAHAHAHahahahaAHAHAHAHa

Making a determination about something based upon easily accessible cues without actually doing research into the validity of individual pieces of information has a name. It is called "heuristic reasoning" and it is the same thing that leads to over-broad, blanket positions like "D after a name = good."

[X_Digger]

15. responded in wrong place.

[Callisto32]

41. Attacking a source?

From a guy who seems to think that "Doonesbury" is a source of high commentary.

Nice.

[cowman]

2. I wont ask

another person to do what I wont do for myself and thats why I do carry conceal because I figured out a long time ago that if I want protection for myself and family, I have to provide for it and I refuse to be a coward about it

[jazzhound]

6. Taking responsibility vs. strutting macho

One of the more heinous and frequent pieces of spin that the anti-gun crowd loves to disseminate is the actual reason CC permit holders carry. Calmly taking responsibility for one's own defense (and defense of family) isn't represented as a potential motivation.

[katandmoon]

9. A bunch of paranoaic crap worthy of the most deranged teabagger. Sad to see it on DU.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

12. Another hit-and-run?

Or are you going to sit down and actually discuss...?

[jazzhound]

21. Of course she won't discuss

She can't be bothered with studying the issue, and even if she did there is no evidence to support her attitudes.

[cowman]

22. Thank YOU

[Tejas]

26. les treull hath spoken, all hail les treull!

[slackmaster]

32. Wow. You must really get around a lot.

:rofl:

[cabluedem]

35. this crape was around back when NRA member mcviegh blew up the okc building. how sad is that?

[cowman]

36. Just because

you don't want to be able to defend yourself if it came to that with the best available tool, don't ostracize the rest of us because you have an aversion to gun, thats your right to not like guns and its our right to own and carry them

I see your language is getting better, what's the matter, been deleted too many times?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

39. Your posts

are deleted because of the insults and name calling, you apparently can't have an honest debate without the insults

[tburnsten]

40. Yes, a person who happened to be a member of the NRA committed a heinous crime

Let's ban the NRA forever. Because they specially screen all their members and are not a group anyone can join for $35 annually.

[Callisto32]

43. Because we all know that whole groups can be judged based upon the actions of a sample of one.

Again, either discuss or find a bridge to hide under. Baiting gets nobody anywhere.

[tburnsten]

44. Especially when the group in question has an active membership of over four million N/T

[Euromutt]

46. And while former UC Berkeley faculty member Ted Kaczynski was conducting his Unabomber campaign

How is any of that relevant to the piece quoted in the OP?

(Clarification: I'm not trying to suggest mathematicians, Harvard grads or UC Berkeley faculty are particularly likely to commit acts of terrorism. Neither are members of the National Rifle Association; note that that's "rifle," not "truck bomb.")

[Tejas]

49. and when the Million Mom speaker got busted on, ahem, ATTEMPTED MURDER

Funny how hypocracy works.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

16. k&r n/t

[stray cat]

24. Speaking for yourself? I know many brave people and many who hide cowardice by pretending all are.

[rrneck]

27. After a quick skim

I found stuff both good and not so good.

Not so good:
"The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way."

"Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism."

As a member of the liberal elite, I didn't get the memo regarding hubris and oppression.

"Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community."

God's got nothing to do with it. Every living organism has a means to defend itself through the gift of evolution.

"Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them."

That depends on who sets the standards and what they are. A lot of bad people have tremendous self respect. Self respect means that one respects one's self, no more, no less.

"OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history."

Walk into any shopping mall in the United States and you will see the same shit on display there. Every strip mall, fast food joint, car dealership, and grocery store is a carbon copy of another one on the other side of the continent. Schools train people to be good consumers and obedient employees. The bulk of the information and entertainment we receive is delivered by about a half dozen corporations. Self expression, and hence self awareness, is at an all time low.

Good:
"How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?"

I'm always wary of anyone who would use non partisan examples to support a partisan agenda. Just because somebody kicks in a door and somebody else has to shoot them doesn't mean self defense is an expression of some political ideology and supported by some god given morality. It only means someone got to live long enough to consider the ramifications of their actions.

[Caliman73]

33. Excellent reply.

I have read that article a few times as well and you sum up the good, the bad, and the ugly very nicely.

[Euromutt]

34. Yeah, it's a mixed bag

There are a number of observations I can wholeheartedly agree with.

The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." <...> Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement.

Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. <...> The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will.

But those are the nuggets in the dross.

Not being a social conservative or a minarchist libertarian, I don't buy into the past existence of some mythical golden age, during which everyone had a perfect understanding of the "correct" socio-political values, and (in the conservative pipe dream) there were no sex offenders or drug users, or (in the minarchist pipe dream) everybody's needs were met without the involvement of a government agency. Mr. Snyder does seem to believe in such an era.

[Callisto32]

45. You are painting with a broad brush, Euromutt.

My personal values are usually what would be considered socially conservative, though my idea of what is best for society is decidedly libertarian. I fall into the category of "just because I think it is a bad idea, doesn't mean I should be able to stop you from doing it if you don't hurt anybody." In this state, I know very well that the golden age never was. Of course, I also have been known to engage a little cannabis use, so maybe I don't count.

[Euromutt]

47. I didn't intend to suggest that all conservatives or libertarians subscribe such an idea

My apologies if I gave that impression. Some (perhaps many, but by no means all) conservative and libertarian writers and commentators do, however, seem to subscribe to such notions, though I hasten to point that their respective concepts of said golden age are quite different. Many conservatives seem to adhere to some notion that society went to hell with the Sexual Revolution, with the introduction of no-fault divorces, or some such, and think that The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet and Leave It To Beaver were documentaries, blissfully unaware of the fact that the 1940s and 1950s definitely had their share of sex offenses, porn flicks and drug use. And there are those a libertarian bent (and I know trying to make all-encompassing statements about libertarians is like herding cats) who hearken back to some ideal period around the time the Constitution was ratified, in which the Whiskey Rebellion never happened, and Alexander Hamilton didn't provide the United States' first government-funded economic stimulus.

[Callisto32]

48. I didn't intended to suggest you thought all were.

I apparently only wrote part of my intended reply. :shrug:

The rest was something like: I don't think as many of these people really believe that there was a golden age as it may seem. It is just the typical syndrome where the people with the least idea about what is going on will be the most vocal, giving the impression that members of a group are more off of their rockers than they actually are. I have many friends that are social conservatives/libertarians, and we complain about the people trying to get back to the age that never was, too.