• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

dont call the police defend your self...a local shariff states...

Free episodes:

I've been on international forums over the years and always enjoy the exchange of views on this topic because it seems to illuminate a basic difference in outlook between most Americans and other nations. It usually plays out leaving a kind of unbridgeable gulf in attitudes and philosophies.

I can't do better than Don's summation of why this gap probably exists. I did not know that British citizens were allowed to have firearms pre-WWI, and I find this chapter of history to be illuminating. As for guns being the cause of this nation's bloody history--bull hock! The history of all nations is stained with blood, be it by guns, knives, swords or clubs. And the cruder the weapon, the more disadvantaged the physically weaker party is always going to be. At age 61 with a very bad back, if a couple of pumped up young toughs should come at me with so much as their bare hands, I would be pretty stupid to go into a karate stance, right? I feel sorry for people forced to shoot someone in self -defense. But I feel even sorrier for those who wind up dead or maimed simply because they are easy prey.

The defense against government is a more complex issue. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Do citizens armed with rifles prevent the power of authority from being absolute? I hope so.

End of rant, my 2 cents worth, etc.
 
Don I found my self standing up and clapping after reading your post. Well stated. Bravo!
 
Here are the thoughts on a so-called "gun ban" by a young African American woman.


I would just add that she is a bit confused about her facts on Republicans. Lincoln freed the slaves...Lincoln was a Republican. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also a Republican and said that no black person in their right mind should ever vote for a Democrat. It has always been the Republicans at the forefront of fighting for the rights of blacks. They stood with Dr. King in the civil rights movement, while Democrats stood in doorways and denied black entry into schools and universities.

Decker
 
In American, with the gun culture I would definitely say that it's a good idea to learn how to protect yourself, home and family. I must take issue with you saying that the cops are not obligated to protect you? I thought that was their primary function, 'To Protect and Serve' - is that often not printed on the side of squad cars?
I'd be really, really worried if the cops started saying that it wasn't their job to protect the public.

I'm not confusing what I just said with their ability to protect you however. I know it's totally unrealistic to expect cops to get to your location in time to do the saving, if someone is imminently about to endanger you. You basically have to take a large measure of personal responsibility to your own safety. It's common sense. Things like parking your car in a brightly lit area, not walking in dodgy neighbourhoods alone after dark, leaving valuable on display in cars etc. People who flaunt wealth are often just asking someone to steal from them. I'm not excusing theft, only pointing out the things one can do to lessen the risk of something happening.

Muadib - with the downsizing and cutbacks, I understand those in law enforcement giving advice to protect oneself, but has any police dept actually said anything remotely close to 'it not being their duty to protect you' ? If that was so, I would asking why you should continue paying the same amount of taxes etc. If the police don't care about protecting us, then I certainly don't want to be buying their donuts!

When I say obligated I'm speaking from a legal standpoint. The police will no doubt do their best to help you if you call 911 but they have no legal obligation to say, respond to your call first when another call comes in or even show up at all. I realize their motto is to "Protect and Serve" but what they really do is uphold the law, which can involve both serving and protecting. My main point was, relying on the police to save your arse is a very risky proposition, I think people are better off protecting themselves in whatever way possible first and hoping the cops show up second.
 
An interesting article on the Republicans of today taking credit for the civil rights movement of the '60s, which is ridiculous. While Don is correct that it was Democrats in the '60s who barred the way for blacks, it was only because no Southern racist would have ever considered joining the party of the man who freed the slaves, so they were Democrats by default essentially. That all changed when the Dixiecrats splintered off from the main Democratic party and then wound up joining the Republicans. The Republican party of today would be virtually unrecognizable to Lincoln.

Rewriting History

By Tom Degan
barry-goldwater.gif
What a difference forty-seven years makes, huh? Back in 1964 Barry Goldwater‘s campaign slogan was, “In your heart you know he’s right”. The Democrats has a snappy comeback for that one: “In your guts you know he’s nuts.” During that long ago campaign against Lyndon Johnson, he had actually proposed the idea of introducing low-level nuclear weapons into the Vietnam conflict. He had even identified himself as a staunch opponent of Lyndon Johnson‘s proposed civil rights bill. So extreme did Goldwater appear to most Americans all those decades ago, the very thought of him serving so-much-as-a-single-day as commander-in-chief was enough to give every thinking person the dry heaves.
To quote the Monkees: “That was then, this is now.”
Truth be told, Goldwater – when compared to his present day, ideological heirs – is starting to look pretty good in hindsight. 1964 was the year that the kooks and fools began to take hold of the “party of Lincoln”. He had to take a lot of positions during that campaign that he privately abhorred – his militant stance against equal rights for African Americans being one of them. As his post-campaign career would prove, he turned out to be a fairly decent senator in a lot of respects. He would end his life as a strong proponent of equal rights for gay people and Native Americans. Were Barry Goldwater to run as a Republican in 2010, he couldn’t get nominated as Toilet Cleaner for Yuma County Arizona.
As conservative as old Barry undoubtedly was, at the end of his life he was disgusted and alarmed at the direction his party appeared to be headed. At the time of his death on May 29, 1998, he was collaborating with John Dean on a book that decried the state of the modern-day GOP. Dean eventually completed the book a few years ago. It was called, Conservatives Without Conscience. Maybe it’s a blessing that Goldwater did not live to see Sarah Palin.
One of the newest (and most amusing) GOP talking points is that – way back when – it was the Democrats who were the enemies of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, and that it never would have been passed without the Republicans. This is partially true. It was the Southern Democrats who were rabidly opposed to basic human rights for people of color that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. But what is undeniable is the fact that the the right wing spin doctors have been engaging recently in a cynical bit of revisionist history. Let me begin my explanation be posing two basic questions:
QUESTION NUMBER ONE: “Were” the Republicans at least partially responsible for the success of LBJ’s Civil Rights Act in 1964?
ANSWER: Absolutely they were
QUESTION NUMBER TWO: “Are” the Republicans entitled to take credit for that fact in 2010?
ANSWER: Absolutely not.
billie-holiday.gif
You see, a half-century ago the Republican party was virtually nonexistent south of the Mason Dixon Line. Oh, sure, there were a few people in that region of the country who identified themselves as Republicans, but the majority of them were black - and not allowed to vote! In the former Confederacy, white people were almost exclusively registered with the Democratic party. Why you ask? Because none of these jackasses could bring themselves to register with the party of Republican Abraham Lincoln: “That ******-lovin’ bastard that freed the slaves.” Let’s face it, a grudge is a grudge - even a century after the fact. That all changed in the mid-nineteen-sixties.
When President Johnson signed into being the Civil rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it marked the end of the “solid south” for the Democratic party. At the time, Johnson told his two aides Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers, “We’ve lost the south for a generation.” It turned out to be an optimistic prediction.
The Southern Strategy
In 1968, the Richard Nixon campaign, sensing the outrage and resentment of nearly all southern Democrats, devised a strategy to win over the hearts and minds of the nitwits who controlled that party in Dixie. Exploiting the riots that had occurred in cities all across America in the aftermath of the murder of Martin Luther King, Tricky Dick ran a campaign that emphasized, “Law and Order”. He didn’t actually come out and say, “I’m going to protect you good people from those nasty, filthy Negroes!” He didn’t have to. All the Trickster needed to do was rely on code words. It worked. When he was reelected in 1972, the descendants of the old confederacy had fled - like frightened rats - to the Republican party, which, by the way, was no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, but the party of Richard Milhaus Nixon.
Now they are trying to get us to swallow the fantasy that the mass exodus of Democrats to the GOP nearly forty years ago had absolutely nothing to do with race. It was all about economics, they tell us. Bullshit. It had everything to do with race. I was born very early in the morning, but it wasn’t this morning.
What happened, quite simply, was a fusion of the economic plutocrats of the Republican north, with the racial bigots of the Democratic south. Had it not been for Nixon’s southern strategy in 1968, that coalition would never have come into existence. Had it not been for the south’s reaction to the civil rights movement, this country never would have elected a feeble-minded old reactionary like Ronald Reagan thirty years ago this November. Indeed, Reagan would launch his campaign from the town of Philadelphia, Mississippi, an unremarkable tiny stain on the map whose only claim to fame prior to 1980 was the brutal murder of three civil rights workers in the summer of 1964; and shame on us if we ever forget their names:
  • Andrew Goodman aged twenty
  • James Cheney, aged twenty-one
  • Michael Schwerner, aged twenty-four
In 1980, Ronald Reagan had a message to send the sons and daughters of Dixie who still flew the Confederate flag on their front lawns: “Jim Crow’s gonna be welcome in my White House”. And for the most part, he was. The slow-but-steady gains that black people in America had seen since that afternoon in December of 1955 – when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus to a white man, thus launching the civil rights revolution – began to falter when Reagan entered the White House in January of 1981. In Dixieland he took his stand….

The very idea of the modern-day Republican party staking a claim in the successes of the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties is (and I’m being charitable here) disingenuous at best.(Come to think about it, I’m not feeling all that charitable this morning): It’s a goddammed lie. (Much better).
So let’s all take a deep breath, shall we? These silly Republicans (in their present incarnation anyway) are about as much responsible for the gains of the civil rights era as I am for the invention of Cheese Doodles. Get a grip.
Tom Degan
[email protected]
 
So Muadib, are you suggesting that Repubs. today want to re-institute Jim Crow laws? I hate to sound redundant but it is the uber-left Dem's that are keeping the African American and Hispanic minority's down. With welfare, food stamps, high taxes, no jobs ... it is a jungle out there. But ... this thread in about gun control. Let's keep on topic.

Decker
 
So Muadib, are you suggesting that Repubs. today want to re-institute Jim Crow laws? I hate to sound redundant but it is the uber-left Dem's that are keeping the African American and Hispanic minority's down. With welfare, food stamps, high taxes, no jobs ... it is a jungle out there. But ... this thread in about gun control. Let's keep on topic.

Decker

I really wish you'd stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where did I say that? Where did the article even say that? Yeah, helping people feed themselves is definitely keeping them down. Why don't you go ask some people that receive those benefits if they think they're being kept down or kept alive in a bad situation. You know better than they do though, right? What a fantasy. The only bigger fantasy is the idea that our current economic state is attributable to the Democrats, it was the idiot Republican in the White House for 8 years that destroyed the economy, not Obama and not the Dems.

As for keeping on topic, you made the original post I was simply providing the other side. I have no problem staying on topic but when I see erroneous information like modern day Republicans taking credit for the civil rights movement, I'm going to point it out.
 
Contrary to what the media try to ram down your throat, the 2nd Adm. has always been about the ability of the citizen to defend themselves ... and has nothing to do, at all, with hunting or target shooting. The other thing that the Founding Fathers had in mihttp://https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/dont-call-the-police-defend-your-self-a-local-shariff-states.12372/nd with the 2nd Adm. was the ability of the public to defend themselves against a tyrant minded Federal Government. I am constantly astounded by the ignorance expounded by the media and the talking heads when discussing the private ownership of firearms.


The second amendment as is:

"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."

The second amendment as far too often discussed:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Everyone seems to want to forget the militia part. From the wording of the second amendment the founding fathers thought that the militia part was very important. It's even the first thing mentioned in the amendment.

A militia is an organized group of able bodied military age non-soldiers to be called upon by state or federal governments when the military needs help. Since the 2000's the United States official militia is the National Guard. Nothing in the law says that the second amendment exists to fight the federal government of the United States.

Now having said that I believe in a person's right to own fire arms. I live in a rural area and guns are handy if only for protection from wild animals that we share the area with. We have bear problems here mostly however wolves, coyotes and mountain lions are becoming more and more a "nuisance" as well.

I wanted to add my two scents because I grow weary of "incomplete" arguments.
 
The second amendment as is:



"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."


I wanted to add my two scents because I grow weary of "incomplete" arguments.


The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled on that. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Decker
 
I really wish you'd stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where did I say that?

As for keeping on topic, you made the original post I was simply providing the other side. I have no problem staying on topic but when I see erroneous information like modern day Republicans taking credit for the civil rights movement, I'm going to point it out.

Well, I was around then and I am still around now. I was for civil rights then and am for civil rights now. I think that pretty much says it all.

Decker
 
Well, I was around then and I am still around now. I was for civil rights then and am for civil rights now. I think that pretty much says it all.

Decker

I don't think it says anything, other than you're for civil rights. That's good, so am I, regardless of what Southern Democrats in the 1960's did. Maybe take a look sometime at how Republicans are advocating that religion be taught as curriculum in Texas, and how that religion says that blacks are inferior. Or the Mormons, like Mitt Romney, who also believe that blacks are cursed by God. I would never say that all Republicans are racists but the fact remains that many of them are, just like there are some racist Democrats out there I'm sure.
 
I don't know where to begin with all this as logic and science both tell us that where there are more guns there are more murders. I believe the statistic in the US is that something like 75% of the mass shootings that occur multiple times in America annually are from legally obtained guns. If the majority of those shootings are from semi-automatic handguns then i'm sure you can see what the next steps are: limit/suspend/ban the purchase of semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons to curb mass shootings.

As for the history lesson, it's not needed. I got taught mostly American history growing up so I understand all those features, especially the right for rural folk to have weapons as a matter of functionality in geography. Defending against nature and hunting are entirely valid and reasonable supports for gun ownership. I don't hunt myself, but am really appreciative of any fellow northerner who gives me some venison or moose they killed. What was interesting in Decker's post was the unfinished bit about Britain's early firearm reforms which go way back before WWI - and all of those early laws are about reasonable reasons for owning a weapon usually tied to hunting on one's property.

As for war - it is always a waste of human life. I am indebted forever to any soldier in any time who defends freedom because it is necessary (that's a debate on its own) and can only respect young people who join military service to put themselves in harm's way for the benefit of others. Two sides of my family were both screwed over by WWII and alcoholism, suicide and abuse all descended through the family as a result. I wish there never was, nor will be war, but that's pretty naive to hope for in a day and age when rhetoric will cost the lives of many. "Let's go get those weapons of mass destruction that don't exist - pardon me for all the bloodshed."

But, as for America's gun culture and an irresponsible sheriff who uses rhetoric, fear and propaganda to scare people into buying guns - that's just ridiculous. More guns = more death. I think America has evolved significantly since those days of killing aboriginal people and fighting off imperialist bastards. Truth be told gun ownership is steadily on the decrease in the US which is a positive sign. Running out to buy assault rifles because you're worried they won't be there next week is just inexplicable. Do you need an assault rifle to defend yourself or kill a bear? The NRA, IMHO,is an anachronistic group that continues to mess with everybody's heads.

So, you see, I agree with Decker's signature to some extent, but only in that our civilization has not yet evolved enough to solve problems other than by killing other people. I wonder where all those troubled youth who commit mass killings learned that from?
 
Just so we get a full taste of gun rhetoric I thought it would be good to look at all those whacko theories of Sandy Hook as a conspiracy to create tougher gun laws. It's like saying a president would allow the hijacking of planes and allow for mass losses of American lives in order to go start a war for profit. It's the ideology of the irrational need for a gun that I do not comprehend, nor the ideas that follow out of such thinking.

Your comprehensive answer to every Sandy Hook conspiracy theory - Salon.com
 
You see, my family on my mom's side were in what was then the English colonies about 30 or 40 years prior to the American Revolution. My maternal grandfather's family came out of Ireland .. to France then to the colonies. He was indentured in Lancaster Co. as a gunsmith, learned his trade and when he could he struck out on his own as a gunsmith.

I know that all the other pro-gun folk will come back at me for the most recent post but as I genuinely want to understand the gap between my thinking and yours regarding guns I wanted to ask a more personal question. As your own familial history descends from a lengthy immigrant history that at one point included
the profession of the gunsmith as the family wage earning profession, would you say that this is what most defines your current attitudes around owning guns? As I can understand how family pride can create such personal values, as well as spawn even other positive, pro-gun thinking. What, in your experience best defines your attitudes in this area, if you don't mind sharing.

Mine was defined through a personal response to one of Canada's biggest mass shootings, but that's another story.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled on that. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Decker

Well then I stand corrected. I appreciate the info.

From what I've been reading on the Supreme Court decision it sounds like what is allowed to be owned is anything that would be considered "common" for the times. I don't know sometimes I think lawyers and judges are horrible at writing legal documents.
 
I have to say I quite liked when Jesse said that with his concealed carry permit, he would have sorted out the Aurora shooter. I have no doubt he would either.
 
This is pretty interesting, Britain has very few guns yet is listed as the most violent country in the EU, it is even more violent than South Africa. The USA is not even in the top 10.
 
I have to say I quite liked when Jesse said that with his concealed carry permit, he would have sorted out the Aurora shooter. I have no doubt he would either.
With him being an ex-Navy Seal? You darn tootin' he would have taken out that asswipe in seconds flat.
 
Back
Top