Hammer and the Gun

Conditions in Canada and the United States in the generations immediately before and after the revolution are similar to those of England during the time of Alfred the Great. Alfred was concerned with protecting the Anglo Saxon lands from Viking and Scot raiders, with vastly greater land to defend than forces with which to defend it. In Canada and the US, we had two warring nations (first the English and French, and later British North America and the United States), as well as the periodic raid and counter raid with native tribes upon whom our settlement was encroaching, and who were often drawn into our conflicts as allied auxiliaries for one side or another.

The basis of defense for both our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, and our North American ones was the Fyrd, the armed free landholding citizens. These were the leading citizens in each community, the ones expected to take the lead in any crisis, be it natural or military. In both Alfred’s time and that of our ancestors, the Fyrd is not enough. A standing army of troops in federal service supplies the elite and specialty troops, while the Fyrd or militia supplies both local manpower, and local knowledge.
It has always been the duty of all free men to take part in the communal defense of the folk. Tacitus tells us in Germania that:
“They transact no public or private business without being armed. it is not, however, usual for anyone to wear arms till the state has recognized his power to use them. Then in the presence of the council one of the chiefs, or the young man's father, or some kinsman, equips him with a shield and a spear. These arms are what the "toga" is with us, the first honour with which youth is invested. Up to this time he is regarded as a member of a household, after-wards as a member of the commonwealth.<1>”
Arms are seen not as a right of citizenship, but rather the duty of all citizens to take part in the defense of their folk and nation, to take up arms, to train and condition themselves in their use, and maintain themselves ready to serve if required. A man could not be a citizen if he was not able to bear this burden, or not willing.
We see this maintained through the ages to Switzerland, where to vote the only form of identification or citizenship that was required or accepted was
“to show their ceremonial sword or Swiss military sidearm (bayonet), this gave proof that you were a freeman allowed to bear arms and to vote.<2>”
Indeed, for two rural cantons in Switzerland, this ancient custom of armed free citizens gathering to Thing to settle their laws and disputes remains unchanged to this day <2>
1. Tacitus Germania, Training of Youth
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
2. Landsgemeinde: Laws of the Swiss Canton
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/ff/1999/5397.pdf
From these common beginnings of a culture that defined the private ownership of arms by the citizens as a pillar of social stability and collective defense we get the US Second Amendment of the Constitution
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<3> “
From this root, a very strange tree grew for our southern neighbors. What began with Thomas Jefferson stating that the right to keep and bear arms could be as a last resort, a bar to government tyranny has somehow changed into the purpose of owning guns being to defend your liberty from the government. What had begun as armed free men being the foundation of the security of the state and its people, has turned into NRA President Charleton Heston telling the Vice President Al Gore in 2000 that he can pry his gun “From my cold dead hands!<4>”

What has changed? The culture has changed from arms being a part of a free man’s duty to bear for the collective defense, to arms being a weapon for an individual to use to protect himself from society. As a result, society, being defined as everybody but the shooter, is now defined as the enemy. Virgina Tech 2007, a disturbed student kills 32 of his fellow students. McDonalds, San Ysidro California 1984, an angry security guard kills 21 diners. Columbine High School, Littleton Colorado 1999, two students kill 13 of their fellows<5>. Sandy Hook Elementary, Newton Conneticut, 2012, a disturbed man kills 26 women and children. Marc Lepine in 1984 attacked Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique, leaving 14 dead women<7>.
Our ancestors looked at their fellow tribesmen, their fellow citizens and saw “us”. To our ancestors, there was no question that you would rally to aid your neighbors in the face of flood, fire, outlaw, or enemy. Our sense of worth was based on our fulfilling our duties to our kin, and to our community. Indeed, the chance to perform with distinction in front of your peers was actively sought out, for much honour, status, and thus influence was gained by such deeds. Society was ours to defend, to strengthen and guide. Somewhere along the line many of our fellow citizens have stopped seeing “us” when they look upon their neighbors, their coworkers, their fellow students. They see this faceless enemy called society. When they strike back at it, they strike only us.
3. Young, David E., The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, p.222
4. NRA 2000 National Convention, President Charlton Heston speech http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dfa_1356207495&comments=1
5 The Blaze http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/14/conn-elementary-school-shooting-tragically-makes-list-of-worst-shooting-sprees-in-u-s-history/
6 Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-shooting-victims- names_n_2307354.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular#slide=1888039
7. CanWest News, Canada.com http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=dcb98c06-2c4f-46f1-bc6f-6a147308a252&k=33060
There is a reason why the bulk of the Havamal is concerned with the laws of hospitality. Hospitality makes strangers into friends, friends into kin, and kin into family. The gods did not leave us detailed instructions of how we should blot, or how to perform sumbel; what they left us was how to treat each other with respect, how to build and maintain relationships. How to foster community.
While Heathens are a small part of our population here in Canada, we are disproportionately represented in the military. Our sense of responsibility, our desire to serve our folk, and to test ourselves sends more of us into uniform into our various nations militaries than you would suspect. Heathens coming out of the military possess three distinct skills, skill with weapons, skills in wilderness survival, and skills in setting up a rude approximation of civilization in the middle of a wilderness or disaster area.

There are those who say we would thus be prepared to survive disasters that would claim our less prepared neighbors. I would disagree. I would say rather that we are prepared to lead our neighbors in efforts to make sure we all survive. Heathens were forging civilization out of the frontiers from the Urals to Reykjavik, because we are able to come together in common cause with those of our own tribe, and those who have come to our community from other tribes, in common cause. North America needs to see a return of the Fyrd that was, the armed free men (and women) who stand ready to defend and support their community, rather than the rather bizarre militia attitude that has divided the land into mutually hostile groups who see in their shared government one enemy, and their every neighbor as another.

The most common sign of the Heathen in the post Syncretic period is the Mjolnir, the Hammer of Thor. Those of us who live under the hammer understand he is not just a god who smites Jottun, he is the defender of social order, the patron of harmonious society. The culture of our ancestors embraced weapons as the foundation of social order, and societal freedom. The gun culture of today uses weapons to weaken society, and to turn freedom to live in society into freedom to attack it. It is time for those of us who live under the hammer to show our neighbors how to turn their guns back into the support of our society, not its destruction.

First of all. I wish to reintergrate my own perspective on guns. I think that they no longer are needed & have led to the senseless violince that we see today. I don't own a gun & never will.

Now having said the above. And John I'm only goig to speak about my American culture here.
1. The gun laws we have presently aren't being enforced as they should be.
2. Those like myself must accept that banning all guns in our society can never be.
3. The reason being is that our culture was built on everyone being able to own guns. Be it for hunting or for defending our neighbors, our Country. We are a society built around guns. It's ingrained in us.
4. Before anyone thinks that I'm not Patriotic. I served my Country, Defended my Country in the Nam era. And I am a Proud Veteran.
5. I've also seen & been affected by the Dark side of Guns. I've seen in my own family how guns can't upset & destroy lives. I have a brother who was shot during a attepted robbery in 1975. To this day he still has the bullet lodged between two glands. And they can't remove it because he would only have a five percent chance of surviving the sorgery. He has beendisabled ever since.

I just don't think guns are the problem. My mother-in-law was shot and killed by her ex-husband, but if I am really honest with myself, the gun was only used because it was convenient. If he hadn't been able to get a hold of the gun, he would have used a knife. Or his bare hands.
People rarely get shot in horror movies. Why is that? Because knives are ... messier. A killing with a gun tends to be less bloody. If someone is determined to kill someone, they will get the job done. People are bloody minded that way.
When someone we love dies, one of the first questions we ask is "did they suffer?" My MIL never knew what hit her.
There is one thing you must absolutely understand. Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of time. They have been lying, cheating stealing. They have been absolutely nasty to each other, often excusing their behavior by dehumanizing their victim. Humans have always done this and always will. We like to pretend we are civilized now, but take a closer look. Mobs, rogue soldiers, spree killers, they are all still out there. Companies often sanction theft from their own customers. And that is why journalists will always exist. Because contrary to what people want to believe, humans are nasty evil creatures, mobs and group thought all the more so. And the dark must always be brought into the light.
Don't get me wrong. I am not giving guns a pass. I am just saying that if we were to get rid of the guns, we would still have murders, we will still have maimings.
Only they would look more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

I'm sure by now that everyone knows my perspective on guns. Likewise, yall are probably either waiting for me to speak up on this topic, or dreading it.

When we get down to the actual roots of this issue, I really don't understand. I think it is because I come from the standpoint that guns are inanimate objects with no will or desires of their own.

With inanimate objects of any kind lies the possibility that that object will be:
A) Used in an appropriate manner.
B) Misused
C) Treated inappropriately or unsafely.
D) Treated safely.
E) Left to gather dust or rust in a forgotten corner.

It doesn't matter what object we are talking about.

With this understanding, I end up looking at this issue as not being really one to do with the object itself, but instead with its use. Looking at the list above, and please, if you can think of anything else, add to it, I would think that most people are not going to have a problem with A, D, or E.

It's B and C that cause the problems. I have a tv and computer too. There are many, many stories in the media today that are about B and C. About many different objects. We can also find articles about reckless drivers causing accidents. If it bleeds it leads. Some people don't have any desire to be around, much less to have firearms. If one is either not exposed to firearms, or wants nothing to do with them, I can understand why they would develop a regulation or ban mentality. Some people's desires lead toward art, sports cars, my wife loves shoes, my office manager quilts. I have an affinity for guns. I honestly don't see it as any different. Just as the guy who loves cars has no desire to drive a Ferrari at 200+ through a school zone, my wife has no inclination to leave a pair of shoes out where the dog can get a hold of them, and my office manager has no desire to smother her daughter with a quilt, I have no desire to go shoot up an anything, leave a gun out where unauthorized people can get it, or commit a murder with it.

There have been a barrage of stories of misuse and unsafe behavior. There has also been an answering barrage of stories of use for self defense. In my never humble opinion, both of these miss the crux of the issue. In order to get to the heart of the matter, two things need to happen.

1) Gun rights advocates need to understand that the majority of gun control advocates really don't care about guns themselves. Not in an aspect that they care about control, but just from the standpoint that they don't like guns, don't want guns, and really don't understand why anyone would want guns. Couple this perspective with the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality of the news outlets, they come to the conclusion that the only reason why someone would want a firearm is to kill or otherwise force their will upon other people. If you think that the only reason someone could want an object is to kill others, or make them behave against their will, restricting or banning an object makes sense.

2) Gun control advocates need to understand that there are people out there that do like firearms, and appropriately and safely use them. Just as one is unlikely to see a front page headline about a guy that builds a remote control car from scratch, takes it to a rc car park, spends the whole day racing it, takes it home, cleans it up, and stores it in an appropriate location. It is unlikely to see a front page headline about the guy that takes his lawfully owned firearm to the gun range, spends all day there, goes home, cleans it, and puts it in the gun safe. If you are not looking at specifically interest oriented publications, it's just not going to happen. There are people that like it for the appropriate and safe use of the object.

I have no interest in sports cars, art, wine, clothes, shoes, furniture, very little interest in tvs. I don't care about Harry Potter or the latest I phone. I would, however, spend money I didn't have to get another blued Colt Anaconda. I know of people that have similar attachments to 1911, ARs, AKs, M1, and on and on like a list of cars that a Porsche or Ferrari enthusiast could give you. I could run down stats that would make a fantasy baseball enthusiasts head spin.

I can't explain it. I'm not even sure I understand it myself. I know it as contentions of a subject as pet ownership, veganism, homosexuality, or the gods one follows. Likewise, I'm not going to listen to people tell me it is a wrong behavior any more than people in the above groups should. I'm going to be as against it as I am against people prohibiting gay marriage and forced conversions.

I can not understand why people here, rational people who decry discrimination based on race, creed, color, and sexuality. People who have all but torn newcomers to shreds for even hinting at the possibility that they might try to sway someone else to their theological viewpoint. People that are not afraid to decry any -ism under the sun as the ignorance that it is are also ready to regulate or ban inanimate objects that they, of their own admission, do not want to have anything to do with.

It really bothers me. Especially when I see things from people that I respect. Things from people who I see as rational, thinking individuals.

The idea of "need" is a red herring. You are correct, we don't need guns. We also don't need houses, swimming pools, electricity, or bacon cheeseburgers. We want them, or at least some of us do. I'm not going to justify this on the basis of need, and if you expect me to, start by looking around at the things you own determining if you need them or not, and if someone would disagree with you.

Now, having that out of the way.

I think John, that the US has always had at least an idealization of the rugged individual. It has developed even farther in modern times where a person not just idealizes the rugged individual, but begins to see themselves as the rugged individual. Not wanting or needing the help of society.

In the midst of that, there has been more of a bonding of ideals. A person my not need or want anything to do with their neighbors as they don't need interaction with them to accomplish the needs of daily life, but we are social animals. We seek the interaction with, and approval of others. Hence the formation of groups. Theistic groups. Activity groups. Political groups. Whatever a person identifies with, they will likely find a group of people that share that common identity.

In that sense, I do not see the "Gun Culture" as using weapons to weaken society. They are using a common interest to strengthen their group, and, it is not hard to see the development of an "us vs them" mentality on that front.

All. We both do share one perspective. About how our Great Country's culture is one of gun ownership. It's been that from the very start.

Now as to my comments. You've got to realize that they come from my own experiencies growing up. But I've also said that gun control would never work. The laws we have on the books aren't being enforced as they should. Also I believe that should, though unlikely, a gun ban is passed, they would have to include what is called a grandfather clause. Would I like to see guns ban? Absolutely, but it's unrealistic. So while I refuse to own a gun, I can't say that others shouldn't own guns. So all I can say is that this is where I stand on the issue. But that others stands are different from mine are good if they help to bring a better understanding between both sides of this debate. It's not right to demonize opponants. Because both are sharing & debating from our hearts & honest feelings how we feel & view this subject.

I'm sorry I get worked up on this issue, I really don't see much difference between people asserting that they want a gun ban and people asserting that they want to ban gay marriage. Both are attempting to assert their own beliefs and mindset upon a largely law abiding group that is not hurting anyone.

I have trouble more with the fact that people that I know, respect, and consider open minded free thinking individuals who respect the ability of others to make the decisions regarding their own life and happiness would support support such a thing.

And that's what it comes down to for me.

all

I agree it's not right to demonize opponents. This argument in the general areas has devolved into complete irrationality on both sides. I know neither side wishes to start an orwellian global society nor do they wish to set up machine gun nests on street corners, our go to work in tanks.

I have absolutely no problem with you not owning guns. It is my passion. I don't expect others to share it. Just as I don't expect others to follow my gods, drive dodge vehicles, and brew their own beer.

I have in the past leaped to the defense of people of different theologies put my academic career on the line for those of different sexualities from the norm have seen others here do the same, and began to feel an sense of community, nay, almost family with them.

This, I don't understand. What I see as a desire to control the actions of others. To say which things are appropriate to use and which are not? To say that other adults are not responsible enough to own certain things based on personal prejudices? To have persons that I have known and respected for almost a decade begin saying all of a sudden that I am not capable and others of like mindset to myself are monsters that are violent and not to be trusted when I have been the first one in the past to rush to their defense? It's personal and it hurts.

all

And a third post, because this really does bother me Alex.

I know your views come from your experiences growing up. If you were just saying that have no interests to own guns and that you were behind efforts to keep them out of the hands of criminals, I would be fine just as if you said that because of your experiences and the way you were brought up that you didn't even want to associate with homosexuals, or that you refused to drink alcohol, or eat meat. In fact, I would fight to the death to defend your right to do so. This is America dammit.

However, if you are protesting gay marriage, attempting to prohibit alcohol, advocating that no one should eat meat, or banning anything at all including firearms, I am going to disagree with you, and after our history together I am confused and hurt by the hypocrisy that I see.

How is telling millions of lawful gun owners that they can't own the object of their passion because of the actions of the handful of school shooters any different than telling that homosexual couples that they can't marry because of the actions of pederasts?

Tell me please. Resolve this for me.

All, my friend. We both have a lot in common in our views. I agree with you on all that you've posted. I am not working to see a ban on guns enacted. In fact I've said time & time again that it couldn't work or be enforced. I should've said that I was speaking hypothectly when I said that if such a ban was enacted it would have to have a grandfather clause for all who now own guns legally. I've never advocated that guns should be taken out of the hands of those who have legally own guns. And I have spoken out publicly in support of those who own guns. Also if guns were banned they would still be abled to be aquired. We would end up with a siuation like the time of prohibition. So while I say that I would like to see a ban I also know that it would be unrealitic & unenforceable. BTW, I do know how to handle & shoot. Here's a funny ancedote. When I was a Lay Youth Minister I took some of the youths to the State Fair. Well the Army Reserve just happend to have a shooting range set up. Well the teens thought it would be funny to have me try my hand at shooting since they knew how I felt about my not owning nor wanting to own a gun. You should've seen how their faces dropped when I put nine of ten shots in the bullseye & the tenth shot just barely outside of the bullseye. Like you I'm also to speak in defense of those who do own guns, in defense of Gay Marriage, et cetera. So if I've given the wrong impression here I apologize for doing so. I'm very glad that we can have discussions like this.

Your grumpy old curmudgion.

All. I like that video you posted.

Why do you keep saying that you would "like to see a ban"? Whether you see it as unrealistic or not, that is the sticking point for me.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Why do you keep saying that you would "like to see a ban"? Whether you see it as unrealistic or not, that is the sticking point for me.

Well my friend. It seems to me that we have a case of semantics here. Saying I would like to see guns banned & trying to work to get such a ban enacted are two different things. I've said many times just in this thread that such a ban could never work. I'v never signed any support for petitioning such a ban. Quite the opposit. I've stood up & defended the right to own guns, as well as for marriage equality fo that gays can get married. As you & others have rightfully pointed out those who would be prone to kill would find & use other means. If giving my stating my feelings & thoughts is wrong. There are too many other things that could be used to commit murder. Like the saying goes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. To which I would add, by any means they can. I've been trying badly it seems to clarify my feelings. I've only been trying to tell my own personal feeling, not advocating that others should feel the same way. That's all I was trying to do. That & to speak openly about how I feel & think. As were you.

All: You're a great person That I'm proud to call a friend. I wouldn't ever want or ask you to not speak out. I have great respect for you. Changing the subject. How is your son doing?

































































































































































































































All:

Alex: Thank you. I have great respect for you as well. My son is doing great. He sleeps through the night. Loves to play horsey and airplane, and is just beginning to become ticklish. Which we exploit furiously because we love to hear him giggle.

I can't wrap my head around the dichotomy here. How can one "Like to see something banned" and "support the right to use it"? Is it a feeling of resignation that they are going to use them, or a desire that no one would want to have them, or what?

I posted the song, as I am starting to understand what it is talking about. It's a rage at a changing way of life. Why, we couldn't stay. At a time these boards were hopping. 8 years ago, bnet was jumping. As the buddhists say though, the only constant is change. I've developed since then, and I'm sure we all have. The only way we could be the same now, as we were then, is if we have died. So that is why we can't stay. This place has changed. Everyone is off pursuing life. I'm off pursuing life. I've changed. Anyway, very introspective today.

Let me try to put it in another way. Just because a person says he would like to see something legal banned is more indictive of that person just indicating his/her feelings & just goes to showing the nature & character of the person. And not indictive of anything else.

But Alex, that is not consistent with the reaction that I have witnessed here and in other arenas.

The term "banned" seems to indicate a stronger feeling of one desiring to enforce a behavior upon someone else because they do not believe they a capable of behaving responsibly on their own.

ban
[ ban ]

forbid something: to forbid something officially or legally so that it cannot be done, used, seen, or read
stop somebody from doing something: to forbid somebody from doing something or going somewhere

On the other page you likened banning guns with banning gay marriage. I think it is more like banning guns and banning pit bulls. Pit bulls (the breed) aren't a problem, they are just used in a way that makes them sometimes a problem. Same with guns.

The problem is that it is impossible to give a person a mental test before they get a pit bull or a gun. Or test them yearly to see if they are still sane or not intending to shoot someone or train/raise their dog to attack someone.

If there was a bill for that, I'd be for it.

I don't want to ban all guns or pit bulls but I think that military guns - I don't even know the right terms to use here - have no purpose other than to shoot people. I'm against that. If a collector wants one, is there a way to disable it? Is there a way that those kinds of guns, you have to have a special permit for? Like the difference between over the counter drugs and drugs that are controlled?

I don't think it is a case of no guns versus no limits on guns.

It is not as black and white as no guns v no limits on guns.

I'm interested in the current ideal, and maybe it is I that have just taken certain ideas more to heart and it was always the prevalent ideal, of controlling the behavior of others. I shake my head daily, sometimes more than once a day at certain parents, pet owners, drivers, and yes, even the actions of certain gun owners.

I do recognize that there are probably some that do the same for me however. There are those that are not going to agree with the fundamental principles that drive me, and would like to use force to get me to do things there way, usually legal, but it has been physical in the past.

Whether we are talking about guns, sexuality, pet ownership, abortion, or how big your soda is, I see it as the same essential thing, and it comes down to the same slippery slope that has been used for ages....




First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me


Every time we ban or otherwise legally limit the actions of any group not based on what they do but what they could potentially do, we are acting out of fear, and come one step closer to having actions and things that we do care about being limited. We set the precedence for it in other words.

As an aside:

I applaud you not using the term "assault weapons". Any weapon commonly for sale (I say commonly because if one has the 50k and 4 years of filling out paperwork and undergoing background checks, they may be permitted to purchase a fully auto weapon) is only akin to military weapons in appearance. You can put decals on your Camry, but that doesn't make it ready to run NASCAR.

And maybe it is a political thing or a philosophical thing, but I think I would be am more concerned about the military having military style weapons and the people not than I would be about the military and civilian populations having access to the same weapons....

Well, y'all know where I am coming from. I see far too many mentally ill every day to want guns in their hands.

gillyflower wrote:Well, y'all know where I am coming from. I see far too many mentally ill every day to want guns in their hands.

As a sentiment, I agree with you. I want to limit the guns in the hands of the mentally ill, and proven criminals as much as anyone. Those that would prey on a society should not be handed or sold the means which they would use to terrorize that society by that society. However, persons within that society, who mean no harm to that society, should not be penalized. On that point, I agree with Alex. We need to enforce the laws that we already had, punish those that use firearms or any weapons to commit crimes, and improve our mental health system and its reporting.

However, it was only in 1990 that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder, it's far to arbitrary for me.

No system is going to be perfect. I don't feel that is a reason not to try.