It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."

[PureX]

Or just maybe people fight to protect their land, their way of life, their familes? Why did Native Americans fight back against the U.S. Army? Why did the Vietnamese fight against American forces? Why did the Mujahideen fight against the Soviets? Why did the Spartans fight against the invading Persians? Why did all thse groups fight? Was it because they like to kill and were stupid?

But this is America. WE are the aggressors in nearly every instance. And how do we justify that aggression? We pretend we are the victims. Or that we're fighting for the victims. That's why I'm not promoting your "we are the victims" mythology of warfare. Wars are never started by the victims. Ever. They are started by people pretending they are the victims, but who in truth just want to rape, rob, and pillage. So we darn well better include them in any discussion about why people fight in a war!

 

[patrick jane]

The truth is that in most cases there is a man with a gun right behind them, that has sworn to shoot the man in front if he doesn't fight. And there's a man right behind that man, with the same order. And so on.

Another sad truth is that young men like to fight, and to kill things. They are often quite stupid, and controlled by their animal natures.

That's true, they recruit children and young people before they can learn a better way of effecting change. Young people feel invincible and are easy to indoctrinate.

 

[ok doser]

But this is America. WE are the aggressors in nearly every instance.

nearly every, eh? :chuckle:

name six

 

[Granite]

But this is America. WE are the aggressors in nearly every instance. And how do we justify that aggression? We pretend we are the victims. Or that we're fighting for the victims. That's why I'm not promoting your "we are the victims" mythology of warfare. Wars are never started by the victims. Ever. They are started by people pretending they are the victims, but who in truth just want to rape, rob, and pillage. So we darn well better include them in any discussion about why people fight in a war!

All's fair when we say we're "spreading democracy." Whatever the hell people mean by that.

 

[ok doser]

All's fair when we say we're "spreading democracy." Whatever the hell people mean by that.

they mean "installing a government we can manipulate"**





** if the country in question has strategic value to us - otherwise we don't care

 

[The Berean]

But this is America. WE are the aggressors in nearly every instance.

That's only true in the past century or so. Before that it was the British, the French, the Spanish, etc. In Mesoamerica it was the Aztecs. In Asia it's been mostly the Chinese and Japanese. In the Middle East and Africa it's been many, many different tribes conquering other tribes.

And how do we justify that aggression? We pretend we are the victims. Or that we're fighting for the victims. That's why I'm not promoting your "we are the victims" mythology of warfare. Wars are never started by the victims. Ever. They are started by people pretending they are the victims, but who in truth just want to rape, rob, and pillage. So we darn well better include them in any discussion about why people fight in a war!

Wars are almost ALWAYS about economics. Even in ancient times the Persians, the Romans, the Aztecs, etc. these powerful empires needed more land, more resources, more "workers" (i.e. slaves and indentured servants) to expand their empires.

But the original point of my last post was in response to the idea that there is something wrong about fighting for your land, your way of life, your family. That anyone who tried to defend themselves are stupid and violent.

 

[PureX]

Wars are almost ALWAYS about economics. Even in ancient times the Persians, the Romans, the Aztecs, etc. these powerful empires needed more land, more resources, more "workers" (i.e. slaves and indentured servants) to expand their empires.

This is not exactly true. There's no doubt that economics plays a role, but even more so then that, is man's innate desire to fight with each other for the 'glory of victory'. This is a desire that is written into the human male's DNA, and is most intently expressed in males between puberty and their mid 20s. And it is a desire that can then be exploited by older men who do seek the economic spoils of those young men's 'glories'.

My point is that warfare is not noble. It is ugly, and violent, and destructive, and insane behavior. But we don't like to face the ugly truth of it, and even more so the ugly truth of ourselves. So we dress it up in myths designed to make us all out to be defenders instead of aggressors. And we focus on our courage and glory in battle instead of on the brutal violence and senseless destruction of a species attacking itself.

But the original point of my last post was in response to the idea that there is something wrong about fighting for your land, your way of life, your family. That anyone who tried to defend themselves are stupid and violent.

There are no "defensive wars". War is by it's nature, aggressive. Both sides are seeking to annihilate the other. We are lying to ourselves when we claim we are fighting a defensive war. We may be forced to engage in warfare by the aggression of others, but once engaged, we become aggressors; killers, destroyers of life and property, too. This is why I'm averse to hiding warfare behind moral platitudes like "self-defense".

 

[The Berean]

This is not exactly true. There's no doubt that economics plays a role, but even more so then that, is man's innate desire to fight with each other for the 'glory of victory'. This is a desire that is written into the human male's DNA, and is most intently expressed in males between puberty and their mid 20s. And it is a desire that can then be exploited by older men who do seek the economic spoils of those young men's 'glories'.

"Glory" is usually only used as a reason to motiviate the peons to fight in a war. But the people that lead the war effort almost always driven by economics.

Japan attacked the US over economics.

The European powers came to the Americas for economic reasons. They didn't cross the entire Atlantic Ocean in wooden ships simply to engage in war.

The ancient Norse people would attack England for natural resources like timber. They didn't attack England because they were simply bored and just wanted to fight and kill Brits.

My point is that warfare is not noble. It is ugly, and violent, and destructive, and insane behavior. But we don't like to face the ugly truth of it, and even more so the ugly truth of ourselves. So we dress it up in myths designed to make us all out to be defenders instead of aggressors. And we focus on our courage and glory in battle instead of on the brutal violence and senseless destruction.

I don't know anyone who claims war is "noble". Sadly at times it is unavoidable because there are always groups who need/desire to expand economically and attack other groups of people. Warefare is simply a means to achive their economic goals.

There are no "defensive wars". War is by it's nature, aggressive. Both sides are seeking to annihilate the other. We are lying to ourselves when we claim we are fighting a defensive war. We may be forced to engage in warfare by the aggression of others, but once engaged, we become aggressors; killers, destroyers of life and property, too. This is why I'm averse to hiding warfare behind moral platitudes like "defense".

That is simply wrong. When the Native Americans fought the intruding European powers they were lying to themselves that it was a defensive war? When the ancient Spartans fought the invading Persians they were lying to themselves that they were defending their land? When the Brits fought the Norse invaders where they lying to themselves that they were defending their land, their homes, their familes?

 

[glorydaz]

It is ugly, and violent, and destructive, and insane behavior. But we don't like to face the ugly truth of it, and even more so the ugly truth of ourselves. So we dress it up in myths designed to make us all out to be defenders instead of aggressors.

Non violent men have always had to fend off those who attack them. It's not like they enjoy doing so. The "ugly truth" is there are evil men who walk among us.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I wonder what makes people run headlong into death, fighting a force or a government they can't defeat. It must be propaganda or brainwashing. Something convinces them that life will be better if they fight and die ? Or do most think they won't get killed ? I wonder.

I'm not talking about suicide missions. I'm talking about residents who are fighting an invader. None of these forces could ever invade another country, but they all effectively defended there homelands against invaders with far greater military might. The most dangerous hand-wielded weapon in these cases is maybe an R.P.G., but mostly they all have small firearms; i.e., Kalashnikovs.

And horses (Afghanistan).


DJ

1.0
​

 

[aikido7]

In 2014, .0000043% of the U.S population was murdered. The death toll was 13,853. According to one accounting, 69% of those murders were committed with guns and 12% were committed with knives. If we searched the histories of the .000003011% of the U.S. population murdered with guns that year we would likely find a significant percentage of them were criminals and gang members, and we would also likely find a significant percentage of the guns used to murder them were acquired illegally.

Why would that *low number of victims merit any infringement on the right of millions to bear arms? There is presently a misplaced focus by some on the law abiding "gun culture," when they should be focused on the "death culture" that creates murderers who will kill with a knife if they can't get a gun.

* Relative to the U.S. population of 318,900,000 in 2014. For an interesting comparison, a 2013 study estimated premature deaths associated with preventable harm to patients was at more than 400,000 per year, and serious harm 10-20 fold more. In other words, doctors killed far more people negligently in 2014 than were murdered with guns.

The "death culture" develops in a culture that has sacralized the Second Amendment.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

The "death culture" develops in a culture that has sacralized the Second Amendment.

Contrarily, because I am endowed by my Creator with the inalienable right to live, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

My inalienable right to live, and my R.K.B.A. are indivisible (though I can forfeit either or both of them). We Americans don't have a "death culture" but a "life culture," and this is why we don't repeal the Second Amendment, in spite of the violence, even in spite of the terrorism; because the R.K.B.A. is attached at the hip to the inalienable right to live, with which I have been endowed, by my Creator.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[bybee]

Non violent men have always had to fend off those who attack them. It's not like they enjoy doing so. The "ugly truth" is there are evil men who walk among us.

Amen Sister!

 

[PureX]

Non violent men have always had to fend off those who attack them. It's not like they enjoy doing so. The "ugly truth" is there are evil men who walk among us.

There is a difference between "fending off" an attack, and attacking the attacker. Warfare is not defense. Warfare is attacking the attacker. This is why I object to the idea that warfare can be defensive. It's not defensive. It may be undertaken in response to an attack, but once undertaken, it is an offensive activity, not a defensive activity.

Building a bunker to hide from the bombs of attackers is defensive. Attacking the airfields from which their bombers come is not defensive, it's offensive. Warfare is offensive. When we declare war, we are going on the offensive. When we build guns and bombs for ourselves, we are building offensive weapons. When we buy guns to put in our homes, we are not doing so to "defend ourselves", as we all seem to imagine, we are bringing an offensive weapon into our homes. And the fact that so few of us understand this is why so many of us end up being shot or killed by the guns we brought into our own homes, ourselves.

 

[ok doser]

There is a difference between "fending off" an attack, and attacking the attacker. Warfare is not defense. Warfare is attacking the attacker. This is why I object to the idea that warfare can be defensive. It's not defensive. It may be undertaken in response to an attack, but once undertaken, it is an offensive activity, not a defensive activity.

Building a bunker to hide from the bombs of attackers is defensive. Attacking the airfields from which their bombers come is not defensive, it's offensive. Warfare is offensive. When we declare war, we are going on the offensive. When we build guns and bombs for ourselves, we are building offensive weapons. When we buy guns to put in our homes, we are not doing so to "defend ourselves", as we all seem to imagine, we are bringing an offensive weapon into our homes. And the fact that so few of us understand this is why so many of us end up being shot or killed by the guns we brought into our own homes, ourselves.

so you'd rather dig a hole, crawl in and hide?


and when the bad guys come into your hole after you?

then what?

 

[aikido7]

Contrarily, because I am endowed by my Creator with the inalienable right to live, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

My inalienable right to live, and my R.K.B.A. are indivisible (though I can forfeit either or both of them). We Americans don't have a "death culture" but a "life culture," and this is why we don't repeal the Second Amendment, in spite of the violence, even in spite of the terrorism; because the R.K.B.A. is attached at the hip to the inalienable right to live, with which I have been endowed, by my Creator.


DJ

1.0
​

My feeling is that America alone subscribes to the idea that "Violence Saves." Scapegoating, revenge and violence are seen as ways to redeem us.

Not a very moral stance, and clearly does not work in a context of seeing God in Jesus.

I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment. I just wish it was taken more literally. The Amendment ends with the words "...a well-regulated militia." Ironically, the huge mural of the written amendment in the NRA Headquarters is missing the reference to the militia.

I don't believe this was some "accident."

We all cherry pick our reality and this is a good example.

 

[aikido7]

so you'd rather dig a hole, crawl in and hide?


and when the bad guys come into your hole after you?

then what?

Non-violent protest works. Non-violent ways to deal with conflict work.

The story behind my screen name is that aikido--the only martial art that deals with one's opponent without harming them--is the closest thing I have ever come to loving my enemies and turning the other cheek. And psychological aikido can work wonders.

Most of us are unaware of the truth, efficacy and history of non-violence. This is because we live in the Holy Roman Empire of the 21st century and we are not aware--and so we are unable to use--the vast array of choices we have besides being passive or fighting back. And, unfortunately, as Christians we do not take Jesus's actual teachings seriously.

 

[ok doser]

Non-violent protest works. Non-violent ways to deal with conflict work.

try selling that to the cambodians under pol pot

try selling that to the jews under hitler

 

[PureX]

My feeling is that America alone subscribes to the idea that "Violence Saves." Scapegoating, revenge and violence are seen as ways to redeem us.

Not a very moral stance, and clearly does not work in a context of seeing God in Jesus.

I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment. I just wish it was taken more literally. The Amendment ends with the words "...a well-regulated militia." Ironically, the huge mural of the written amendment in the NRA Headquarters is missing the reference to the militia.

I don't believe this was some "accident."

We all cherry pick our reality and this is a good example.

We do have a long history in this country of viewing not just violence as a first solution to interpersonal problems and conflict, but massive violence; maximum force.

A classic example is that of the proverbial movie cowboy "Al" walking into the saloon, and there cowboy "Bob" calls him "a lowdown yella skunk", and then they both jerk their guns and shoot, each intending to erase the other from the face of the Earth. It's an idiotically extreme response to the most minor of conflicts, but such absurd extremism has been written into the American consciousness as normal, and even heroic, by countless films and books with very similar scenes. And we see this extremist nonsense being expressed all the time in this country whenever we find ourselves at odds with some other culture or political system. Our first response seems always to be a desire to annihilate them from the face of the Earth. And never to 'work it out', because that's perceived as cowardice.

It's a bit of cultural insanity that we still have not yet acknowledged in ourselves, and so cannot overcome. But it is at the heart of why we are so violent compared to most other peoples of the world. And why we think we just have to have guns around us all the time.

 

[ok doser]

We do have a long history in this country of viewing not just violence as a first solution to interpersonal problems and conflict, but massive violence; maximum force. A classic example that cowboy "Al" walks into the saloon, cowboy "Bob" calls him "a lowdown yell skunk", and they both jerk their guns each intending to erase the other from the face of the Earth. It's an idiotically extreme response to the conflict, but such absurd extremism has been written into the American consciousness as normal, and even heroic. And we see this extremist nonsense being expressed all the time in this country whenever we find ourselves at odds with some other culture or political system. Our first response seems always to be a desire to annihilate them from the face of the Earth. And never to 'work it out', because that's perceived as cowardice.

It's a bit of cultural insanity that we still have not yet acknowledged in ourselves, and so cannot overcome. But it is at the heart of why we are so violent compared to most other peoples of the world.

have you ever considered not watching so many movies and television and basing your opinions of the world on real life instead of what's been manufactured and spoonfed to you?