An Armed Society is a Polite Society

[CinnamonBear]

Too bad I can't call that quote my own, but I certainly subscribe to it, especially in this day and age.

[Ahso!]

Do you reside in the United States, CB?

[Mustang]

CinnamonBear;1339680 wrote: Too bad I can't call that quote my own, but I certainly subscribe to it, especially in this day and age.




The whole quote is as follows CB:

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


Your life is on the line now?

[spot]

CinnamonBear;1339680 wrote: Too bad I can't call that quote my own, but I certainly subscribe to it, especially in this day and age. It's as well to know what you're quoting from. It doesn't refer to "this day and age", it's a dystopian view of the future. The first couple of sentences of the wikipedia article on "Beyond This Horizon" sum up the setting:The novel depicts a world where genetic selection for increased health, longevity, and intelligence has become so widespread that the unmodified 'control naturals' are a carefully managed (and protected) minority. Dueling and the carrying of arms is a socially accepted way of maintaining civility in public - a man can wear distinctive clothing to show his unwillingness to duel, but this results in a lower social status.



Beyond This Horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duelling? I can't think of any country on earth where it's either legal or socially acceptable. You want it introduced?

[gmc]

CinnamonBear;1339680 wrote: Too bad I can't call that quote my own, but I certainly subscribe to it, especially in this day and age.




You sad sad person. Do you really mean you are only civil to people who are armed?

Where I come from there is an affectionate gesture used to teach manners known as the glasgow kiss. You do get the same affectionate gesture in places like london and Birmingham but being mouthy down there they tend to talk about it more first and as a consequence are often caught out by the sheer speed at which affection can be shown thus resulting in the scots having an unfair reputation for being far too affectionate.

Really you do not need to have an armed society for it to be a polite society.

[Bruv]

gmc;1339724 wrote:

Where I come from there is an affectionate gesture used to teach manners known as the glasgow kiss.




Oh go on, now you will have to explain what it is exactly, I know, but many wont.

[Ahso!]

What I find interesting is many American Christian people have a similar opinion as CB and the fact is they are afraid of one another because more than 78% of Americans claim to be Christian. Their feeling of needing to be armed is an acknowledgement that they consider one another terrorists.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

[Bryn Mawr]

CinnamonBear;1339680 wrote: Too bad I can't call that quote my own, but I certainly subscribe to it, especially in this day and age.




If an armed society is a polite society then why are there parts of La, Boston, Detriot, New York, etc. that are not safe for polite society to go to?

[Bryn Mawr]

Mustang;1339694 wrote: The whole quote is as follows CB:



Your life is on the line now?


He became very strange towards the end, heavily into incest and free love as I recall.

[gmc]

Bryn Mawr;1339748 wrote: He became very strange towards the end, heavily into incest and free love as I recall.


Ah yes stranger in a strange land.

[Bryn Mawr]

gmc;1339759 wrote: Ah yes stranger in a strange land.


That and the number of the beast and to sail beyond sunset - almost all his books after 1980 but even very early stuff like Methuselah's Children.

[spot]

If anyone's interested, Heinlein's context is genetic improvement of the species rather than self defence or good manners.An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That's a personal evaluation only. But gun-fighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things to kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both. It's a good thing.

[CinnamonBear]

Very good stuff, folks. I posted this topic on 3 boards and fully expected the responses received on each of them regarding gun rights. However, I must say, FG exceeded my expectations (with replies totally different from the other groups.) Thanks!

Mustang, thank you. No, I didn't know about the "manners" sentence which further explains the subject quote which stands alone. I like it too.

spot, you're killing me over here. lol Silly. Not long ago when I quoted an exact verse and sentence, full credits, it wasn't enough for you. You wanted to add on and spin it. tut tut

Ahso, Yes, US = America the Beautiful. Your second post is as silly as when you said the Chile miners are muslims.

gmc, if I were sad, I'd promptly mark it on my mood status. I like that feature here. hmmm, I should probably mark it as "hungry" now since it's early morning and time for breakfast and a run.

Hi Bryn. Good question, with more answers than I can provide in one sitting. First, that's the nature of the beast and even the most privileged areas are subject to crime, home invasions, etc. Gun laws and concealed carry laws vary from state to state here in the USA. I think they should be uniform. We should be able to travel cross country with uniform gun laws. Felons should be vigorously hounded and deweaponized. The criminal element (and terrorist enemies) should know that we, the legal, are armed and ready to defend our lives. Granted, many of us are "ready" at any given moment in time, but those numbers should climb up to ward off crime. I agree it's unfortunate we are living in these times, the end time, but criminals who know we are carrying should and will be a little more "polite" especially while looking down a barrel. Shame on them.

Alas, at the end of the day, God is still in charge and He helps those who help themselves. g'morning and g'day! Thanks for the responses, folks, it's been fun. g'day all!

~Proud Card Carrying NRA Member~

[spot]

CinnamonBear;1339956 wrote: spot, you're killing me over here. lol Silly. Not long ago when I quoted an exact verse and sentence, full credits, it wasn't enough for you. You wanted to add on and spin it. tut tut :)Could you expand on that, I've tried hard but I've not managed to understand what you're telling me. What I've done in this thread is put your quote into context, as a dystopian view of gun ownership (which was the author's intention). Would you like to see handguns used to cull the less capable? "Kill off the weak and the stupid"? That's what they were being used for in his book..."Our combativeness has to do with our ancestry and our history. But we have preserved that inheritance intentionally. The Planners would not stop the wearing of arms if they could."

"Maybe so," Felix answered slowly, "but it does seem like there ought to be a better way to do it. This way is pretty sloppy. Sometimes the bystanders get burned."

"The alert ones don't," Mordan pointed out.

[Ahso!]

CinnamonBear;1339956 wrote: Ahso, Yes, US = America the Beautiful. Your second post... which part do you disagree with, that more than 78% of the American people you are afraid of affiliate themselves with Christianity?

[yaaarrrgg]

If a person is a Christian, why would they need a gun?

For one, Jesus was a pacifist. Turn the other cheek, love your enemies?

And secondly, according to Christian doctrine there's always a gaurdian angel protecting you, along with God.

The desire to own a gun really betrays the lack of belief people have in God. It's fine to make-believe on Sundays, but Christians see it as foolish to *really* put their life in God's hands. I suppose though, you should never depend on anyone that's always asking for money.

[Boogalette]

yaaarrrgg;1340004 wrote: If a person is a Christian, why would they need a gun?

For one, Jesus was a pacifist. Turn the other cheek, love your enemies?

And secondly, according to Christian doctrine there's always a gaurdian angel protecting you, along with God.

The desire to own a gun really betrays the lack of belief people have in God. It's fine to make-believe on Sundays, but Christians see it as foolish to *really* put their life in God's hands. I suppose though, you should never depend on anyone that's always asking for money.


Agreed.

It does show a lack of faith, IMO. But some feel the need to `follow`certain crowds for approval.

I know someone who used deadly force to protect themselves and their property. They regret every second of it. I will learn from their first hand experience, not from self righteous,uninformed, herd-mentality personal opinion. I think that would be in the best interest of myself, my family and the society I live in.

Knowledge is power, they say.

I think gun ownership is one topic that a person NEEDS to be learned on.

[spot]

CinnamonBear;1339956 wrote: God is still in charge and He helps those who help themselves.That is, not surprisingly, shockingly blasphemous. God protects the weak, the widow, the stranger in a strange land and the orphans. Isaiah 25:4, for example: You have been a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in his distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat.

The point about "God helps those who help themselves" in its original context is exactly the reverse of your Gun Rights For Citizens stuff, too. Algernon Sydney wrote it in 1698 in "Discourses Concerning Government", the publication of which led to his execution for treason. He says that the individual citizen doesn't prepare to defend his estate with his own force because he lives under the protection of the law, and expects the force of the magistrate should be a security to him. "But kingdoms and commonwealths acknowledging no superior, except God alone, can reasonably hope to be protected by him only; and by him, if with industry and courage they make use of the means he has given them for their own defence. God helps those who help themselves".

Discourses Concerning Government

[LarsMac]

If this logic was correct, Afghanistan should be the most polite place on the planet.

Followed by Somalia, Sudan, and DR Congo.

[spot]

LarsMac;1340029 wrote: If this logic was correct, Afghanistan should be the most polite place on the planet.

Followed by Somalia, Sudan, and DR Congo.


And Alabama, you can't leave that off the list.

[yaaarrrgg]

The tragedy is that we try to deny Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the chance to fully arm themselves, and hence become more polite as a result. Sadly, they are not fully armed. The only way to world peace is to buy everyone a nuke.

[Bruv]

deweaponized.


Nuff said ?

[koan]

as far as politeness goes,

“One may smile, and smile, and be a villain.”

oh, that one came from Shakespeare. Also, some anonymous person once wrote "“The pen is mightier than the sword" and enough people agreed it became a proverb.

[littleCJelkton]

koan;1340106 wrote: as far as politeness goes,

“One may smile, and smile, and be a villain.”

oh, that one came from Shakespeare. Also, some anonymous person once wrote "“The pen is mightier than the sword" and enough people agreed it became a proverb.


Especially those pens with Laser pointers. you can blind the people who have swords with those things, and then they end up stabbing themselves.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1340029 wrote: If this logic was correct, Afghanistan should be the most polite place on the planet.

Followed by Somalia, Sudan, and DR Congo.


Isn't Somalia libertarian paradise? It certainly has limited government, and everyone is running around with guns! Should be a nice, polite place to live.

[spot]

recovering conservative;1340146 wrote: Isn't Somalia libertarian paradise? It certainly has limited government, and everyone is running around with guns! Should be a nice, polite place to live.


I'd wondered where this should have been posted and finally the right place in the right thread has arrived...There's a land far away, where men are truly free

With no government on their backs, they walk in liberty

And they stand upon their own two feet, and live just how they please

Til they get killed in some tribal conflict, or die of a curable disease

It's Somalia, Somalia, land of libertarian dreams

Somalia, Somalia, just ignore the screams

Of the victims of warlords and pirates and gangs

And gunfire and shelling, explosions and bangs

It's the way of the future, you know

And it's where everyone who thinks all governments are bad and unnecessary ought to go

Mitch Benn, 2nd July 2010, The Now Show, Radio 4.

[recovering conservative]

Love it! I figured I wouldn't be the first person to think of it.

[LarsMac]

Priceless.

Somalia. The perfect example of the New World [Dis-]Order.

[Ahso!]

Somalia is a bad example because there are too many white Christians in America to fall into that kind of primitive chaos. Ask any republican in an off election year if you don't believe me.

[YZGI]

Of course an armed society is a polite society. How would people wave at each other if unarmed?

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1340203 wrote: Somalia is a bad example because there are too many white Christians in America to fall into that kind of primitive chaos. Ask any republican in an off election year if you don't believe me.


:-2



Thanks. I feel much safer, now.

[recovering conservative]

Ahso!;1340203 wrote: Somalia is a bad example because there are too many white Christians in America to fall into that kind of primitive chaos. Ask any republican in an off election year if you don't believe me.


:wah::yh_rotfl

They'll never say that one out loud, but in my days as a conservative, when I was a regular on a conservative forum, the majority considered the failures on the continent of Africa to be specifically related to the character and race of the people living there....and I think that's one reason why a lot of the conservative forums are closed, and can't be viewed by non-members.

I know all of the gun nuts will trot out their reasons why they think open carry laws are a good idea, but I'm thinking that having people running around with guns will not result in too many shootings during the good times -- but when I consider the likelihood that our economic situation is permanent, rather than a temporary glitch, and I watch some of the crazy stuff that's being said by the teabaggers and rightwing loons these days, I'm thinking that a lot of states are not going to be so polite in the near future.

[CinnamonBear]

yaaarrrgg;1340004 wrote: If a person is a Christian, why would they need a gun?

For one, Jesus was a pacifist. Turn the other cheek, love your enemies?

And secondly, according to Christian doctrine there's always a gaurdian angel protecting you, along with God.

The desire to own a gun really betrays the lack of belief people have in God. It's fine to make-believe on Sundays, but Christians see it as foolish to *really* put their life in God's hands. I suppose though, you should never depend on anyone that's always asking for money.


America was founded on Christianity. If you don't believe that, here's a clip I'd like to share with you. A history lesson, tour of the US Capitol:

YouTube - U.S. Capitol Tour with David Barton

To take that a step further, the First Amendment gives us the right to free speech. The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I'm simply one who chooses to invoke my rights and enjoy them at the same time. :-6

~~~~~~~~~~

spot, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Silly.

g'afternoon

[spot]

CinnamonBear;1340652 wrote: spot, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Silly. That seems to be a curious trick all of your own devising to avoid responding to any of my posts. It's both lazy and inaccurate. Either what I write is relevant and accurate or it isn't. How does "you know exactly what I'm talking about" constitute either feedback or discussion?

[recovering conservative]

spot;1340709 wrote: That seems to be a curious trick all of your own devising to avoid responding to any of my posts. It's both lazy and inaccurate. Either what I write is relevant and accurate or it isn't. How does "you know exactly what I'm talking about" constitute either feedback or discussion?


That poster isn't worth responding to! Anyone can cut and paste from propaganda websites. Most of their fans don't even bother to watch the videos or read the articles themselves. And they certainly don't go elsewhere to get 2nd opinions. Otherwise, it would soon be learned that David Barton isn't respected by any legitimate historians. Katherine Yurica, who has spent the last ten years following Christian Right extremists on the Yurica Report, had a page posted this summer which linked several articles on David Barton quotes that range from questionable (or unverifiable) to outright fraudulent; yet Barton is called on as an expert by FoxNews frequently, and even worse, was the single, biggest cause of Texas schoolbook mess last year -- the school board called on Barton to rewrite American History, and have made their state's education system a laughingstock:

Religious Right Cowboy David Barton’s Fixin’ To Rewrite The Social Studies Textbooks In The Lone Star State (And Maybe Your State Too)

How Christian Were the Founders?

[CinnamonBear]

spot;1340709 wrote: That seems to be a curious trick all of your own devising to avoid responding to any of my posts. It's both lazy and inaccurate. Either what I write is relevant and accurate or it isn't. How does "you know exactly what I'm talking about" constitute either feedback or discussion?


Actually, the trick is yours = taking something that wasn't said and making believe it was. I'm seeing a pattern there and I find it too silly to reply to. tick tock, my time is limited. When you're ready to reply to what a poster (myself included) has actually said, maybe we can converse. g'day now!

[spot]

CinnamonBear;1340743 wrote: Actually, the trick is yours = taking something that wasn't said and making believe it was. I'm seeing a pattern there and I find it too silly to reply to. tick tock, my time is limited. When you're ready to reply to what a poster (myself included) has actually said, maybe we can converse. g'day now!
Cobblers, madam. You opened the thread with "Too bad I can't call that quote my own", I told you where it started and what it meant in its original context. Something you've chosen to ignore simply because it embarrasses you.

[CinnamonBear]

ahhh, spot, now you're disappointing me. You'll have to reach further down in your bag of tricks instead of simply settling for Trick #2. I simply don't embarrass easily, and never have. We're all different, dear, with different views and opinions. There's nothing to fear. It's a great big world.

Oh, we did stay at a Fairfield Inn/Marriott this weekend, if that counts for anything. :wah:

[Ahso!]

CinnamonBear;1340794 wrote: ahhh, spot, now you're disappointing me. You'll have to reach further down in your bag of tricks instead of simply settling for Trick #2. I simply don't embarrass easily, and never have. We're all different, dear, with different views and opinions. There's nothing to fear. It's a great big world.

Oh, we did stay at a Fairfield Inn/Marriott this weekend, if that counts for anything. :wah:That may be true but mature people like to discuss opinions and views rather than just spout them. Socializing is not everyones strong point, but the good news for you is that it can be learned. Stick around and grow, CB, you'll be a happier, more rounded person in the end.

[spot]

CinnamonBear;1340794 wrote: I simply don't embarrass easily, and never have.The shame, given your ways, is entirely your own in that case.

Some engage in dialogue, others just want to talk without listening. Eventually it becomes clear who's who.

[CinnamonBear]

spot;1340797 wrote: The shame, given your ways, is entirely your own in that case.

Some engage in dialogue, others just want to talk without listening. Eventually it becomes clear who's who.


'tis true, I don't often engage or enable those who reply to posts that don't exist and words that were never said. On some level, I find it amusing though. I can thank you for that since I like to find something positive in everything.

spot, even on message boards, we have choices. g'day now.

[Ahso!]

Ya think its a fascination?

[spot]

CinnamonBear;1340801 wrote: 'tis true, I don't often engage or enable those who reply to posts that don't exist and words that were never said. On some level, I find it amusing though. I can thank you for that since I like to find something positive in everything.

spot, even on message boards, we have choices. g'day now.


Indeed you do, CB, indeed you do. You're consistently wimping out rather than discussing, in thread after thread. And, as you say, it's entirely your own choice. I don't think constant deflection's going to win you much affection though. This is, after all, a moderately permanent medium.

[CinnamonBear]

spot;1340803 wrote: Indeed you do, CB, indeed you do. You're consistently wimping out rather than discussing, in thread after thread. And, as you say, it's entirely your own choice. I don't think constant deflection's going to win you much affection though. This is, after all, a moderately permanent medium.


If wimping out means not engaging in replies to imaginary posts and returning name-calling, I'm guilty as charged. My spirit is too light for that silliness.

As for "affection" - my gosh, you're outdoing yourself there. I don't post anywhere for 'affection' since real life offers that in plenty. Should I make some friends in my internet travels, lovely, but it's not my reason for posting anywhere. I also will not change my opinions and views to suit anyone ... for their affection, as you say. I've worked too hard to get to where I am and I'm happy with it. Is that a sign of my showing force or being otherwise stubbornly disobedient as you claimed earlier?

[Ahso!]

CinnamonBear;1340808 wrote: If wimping out means not engaging in replies to imaginary posts and returning name-calling, I'm guilty as charged. My spirit is too light for that silliness.

As for "affection" - my gosh, you're outdoing yourself there. I don't post anywhere for 'affection' since real life offers that in plenty. Should I make some friends in my internet travels, lovely, but it's not my reason for posting anywhere. I also will not change my opinions and views to suit anyone ... for their affection, as you say. I've worked too hard to get to where I am and I'm happy with it. Is that a sign of my showing force or being otherwise stubbornly disobedient as you claimed earlier? ;)Someone has worked pretty damn hard to get you where you are, but you can rest assure, CB, it wasn't you, they've just convinced you of that.

[Boogalette]

spot;1340803 wrote: Indeed you do, CB, indeed you do. You're consistently wimping out rather than discussing, in thread after thread. And, as you say, it's entirely your own choice. I don't think constant deflection's going to win you much affection though. This is, after all, a moderately permanent medium.


spot, I see that your question still has not been answered.

[CinnamonBear]

Boogalette;1340825 wrote: spot, I see that your question still has not been answered.


Wait, I thought I did. We stayed at the Fairfield Inn - not in Maine, but still the same. (ooops, wrong thread.)

[K.Snyder]

It's hard to distinguish the fine line between evolution and downright genocide material.

The phrase speaks about a very true point but to suggest it's an intelligent one is definitively stupid. "We've come quite a long way from sticks",..

while those more intelligent would call it a decent into hell

[Bryn Mawr]

Boogalette;1340825 wrote: spot, I see that your question still has not been answered.


No, and never will be

[Boogalette]

Bryn Mawr;1340860 wrote: No, and never will be


Bryn, you are most likely right.