Pax wrote:Spending some time at the range this weekend gave me pause. As usual the place was chock full of anti Obama, anti liberal, pro conservative info/bias; it caused me to wonder if 2A can be a persons sole voting issue. Surprisingly, it seems so.

As much as I support the constitution, and as a veteran and former LEO have put my money where my mouth is, I can't imagine one single issue deserving my focus, loyalty, and almost religious fervor type support like 2A seems to garner. Then it occurred to me, if you already have all the "rights" you feel you deserve, you are safe in your place in the world, you hold the power... of course you could vote based on a single issue.

It was a "light bulb" moment for me; if you are white/male/xtian/straight, you have all the rights you're supposed to have already, it would be easier to have a single issue be your raison d'être!

Might be a no-brainer for some of you, but coming at it from a different world view, this was very enlightening for me.

A very astute observation, Pax. Thank you.

Pax wrote:Think you hit the nail on the head there. The "I've got mine, so fuck you" philosophy runs very deep in this country. I've got a good job and healthcare, so fuck you if you don't, I've got toys and fun stuff so I will do everything in my power to keep them, including accepting minion status from the wealthy.

Not just this country. It's a classic archetype of the Scandinavian troll.

Ever read Henrik Ibsen's play, Peer Gynt? In it, the title character meets the Troll King whose motto is, "Unto One's Self Enough." I don't know if it works this way in Norwegian, but in English that phrase certainly fits the meter of the piece Edvard Grieg wrote for the encounter, "In the Hall of the Mountain King."



We should start humming it when someone in the "I've got mine - fuck you" crowd gets going.

I completely agree. About a month ago someone offered me a career change: full time in a gun shop. He offered about the same money I make now, and said long term commitment only. The job would have obviously been far less physically destructive to my body, and the hours far more consistent (read: predictable. ) but the politics would have surely taken their toll on my psyche. I thought long and hard, but in the end I turned it down because of this.

Fukshot wrote:

judgepacker wrote:Well, what could be said in a broader sense about the psychological dangers of basing your existence on firearms? It's always the thing that worries me, especially as I consider what I have to do to get paid for painting guns.

I'm not sure what we could say generally, but I've thought about this too. Once upon a time, I considered the gunsmithing business as something I might want to do. The idea of being immersed in right wing gun culture on a daily basis was definitely one of the things that kept me from pursuing it.

CDFingers, don't worry so much about knowing your place here. Come on in. The water's fine. You've got to say some pretty fucked up shit around here to get more than a friendly argument.

Time to publish Pax...you have defined the typical frightened, white, middle class american male's perspective on the universe in terms the typical frightened white middle class american male can understand.

There is either a pulitzer or a nobel in there for you.

SwampGrouch wrote:

Pax wrote:Think you hit the nail on the head there. The "I've got mine, so fuck you" philosophy runs very deep in this country. I've got a good job and healthcare, so fuck you if you don't, I've got toys and fun stuff so I will do everything in my power to keep them, including accepting minion status from the wealthy.

Not just this country. It's a classic archetype of the Scandinavian troll.

Ever read Henrik Ibsen's play, Peer Gynt? In it, the title character meets the Troll King whose motto is, "Unto One's Self Enough." I don't know if it works this way in Norwegian, but in English that phrase certainly fits the meter of the piece Edvard Grieg wrote for the encounter, "In the Hall of the Mountain King."



We should start humming it when someone in the "I've got mine - fuck you" crowd gets going.

Nice but I prefer this version:

I am told that half a hit of owsley and this version has its moments...

We should have a classical music thread.

rolandson wrote:I am told that half a hit of owsley and this version has its moments...
[youtube]Woooooo![/youtube]

Half a hit of owsley and most things has its moments.

GnG, ever record a version of Hall of the Mountain King?

Good discussion, and an perceptive point in the OP by Pax.

This might be on topic or not, but in view of all the big Supreme Court deliberations lately, I've been thinking a lot about the original intent of the Second Amendment.

To constitutionally enshrine the right of citizens (or even citizen militias) to bear arms is pretty unusual, I think, among nations. So why did the Founders put it in there?

The answer, I would offer, is the same as other quirky things in the U.S. Constitution. It was put in there to protect the institution of slavery, and to protect slaveowners from their slaves.

I mean, think about it from the standpoint of a Southern slaveowner. You had seen large scale slave revolts like the Stono Rebellion in 1739, which has to be put down by armed white civilians and militia. You knew those arms were the only thing standing between you and vengeful death.

And in that vein, I think we need to ask ourselves how the function of an armed citizenry has actually played out since the founding of the Republic.

I don't see any defense of the homeland from foreign invaders. I do see a lot of racial oppression (think the Klan) and genocide (most massacres of Indians, at least out here in California, were perpretrated by armed white civilians, not soldiers). I see a lot of class oppression, like when armed groups like the VFW led attacks on strikers and labor activists in the 1930s.

But this background might help explain why 2A champions today are mostly racists and right-wing thugs (present company definitely excepted!). It has always been thus. And, I would argue, it was intended to be thus by the founders.

So where am I going with this? Damned if I know.

Fukshot wrote: GnG, ever record a version of Hall of the Mountain King?

While waiting to hear from GnG, I'll recall that I played that piece with my high school orchestra.

I was a viola player then. Viola players are often (and in my case) retreaded violin players whose music teachers decided they weren't going be good enough to make it on violin. Kinda like relief pitchers in baseball.

Then, if you're not good enough to make it orchestrally on viola, you can become a folk fiddler. And love every minute of it!

Al Gore lost the State of Tennessee, his home state, in the 2000 bid for the Presidency over guns. I had a long discussion with one of his campaign advisors trying to inform him that Tennesseans were by nature a bunch of gun toting liberals, but guns come first. His advisors didn't believe me and I advised them just to kiss the state goodbye. They didn't believe me. He lost the state by a wide margin on that single subject. Just something to think about if you are a liberal candidate.

From the very first settlement, all colonies were approved by the crown with the assurance that they would provide for their own common defense. It had nothing to do with slavery because firearm ownership and possession was introduced to the colonies prior to the introduction of slavery. Colonies had to hold weapons for the common defense and then the colonies removed a lot of this burden by requiring certain amounts of firearms and arms be held by each household plus a required reserve of powder, shot, and flint. This should be considered the birth place of the 2A and the purpose or cause was the common defense.

Awesome video on Apocalypta.

Fukshot wrote:

rolandson wrote:I am told that half a hit of owsley and this version has its moments...
[youtube]Woooooo![/youtube]

Half a hit of owsley and most things has its moments.

GnG, ever record a version of Hall of the Mountain King?

Used to perform a cover of the SRC version to eat up a set...lends itself to extended solos and breaks the monotony of the standard 1-4-5 of a blues piece or 6-2-5 of low brow jazz...

I don't know, I think Original Intent has more to do with the fact that they had just gotten out of a war with Britain that would not have been won or even stated without the right or at least ability to bear arms. You have to remember how the revolutionary war started in the first place, the first shots were fired when the British started coming for the colonists weapons, both guns and cannons.

Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith received orders from Gage on the afternoon of April 18 with instructions that he was not to read them until his troops were underway. He was to proceed from Boston "with utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy... all Military stores... But you will take care that the soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants or hurt private property." Gage used his discretion and did not issue written orders for the arrest of rebel leaders, as he feared doing so might spark an uprising.[19]

larrymod wrote:Good discussion, and an perceptive point in the OP by Pax.

This might be on topic or not, but in view of all the big Supreme Court deliberations lately, I've been thinking a lot about the original intent of the Second Amendment.

To constitutionally enshrine the right of citizens (or even citizen militias) to bear arms is pretty unusual, I think, among nations. So why did the Founders put it in there?

The answer, I would offer, is the same as other quirky things in the U.S. Constitution. It was put in there to protect the institution of slavery, and to protect slaveowners from their slaves.

I mean, think about it from the standpoint of a Southern slaveowner. You had seen large scale slave revolts like the Stono Rebellion in 1739, which has to be put down by armed white civilians and militia. You knew those arms were the only thing standing between you and vengeful death.

And in that vein, I think we need to ask ourselves how the function of an armed citizenry has actually played out since the founding of the Republic.

I don't see any defense of the homeland from foreign invaders. I do see a lot of racial oppression (think the Klan) and genocide (most massacres of Indians, at least out here in California, were perpretrated by armed white civilians, not soldiers). I see a lot of class oppression, like when armed groups like the VFW led attacks on strikers and labor activists in the 1930s.

But this background might help explain why 2A champions today are mostly racists and right-wing thugs (present company definitely excepted!). It has always been thus. And, I would argue, it was intended to be thus by the founders.

So where am I going with this? Damned if I know.

I think you're on to something with this line of thought, however, I suspect it was a secondary issue when the Constitution was being drafted. As gendoikari87 indicated, I think the Founders may have been thinking more about the recently concluded Revolutionary War, when they included the 2A in the Constitution, then about maintaining slavery. Later on, maintaining white dominance may have moved to center stage where 2A issues were/are concerned.

You are aware, however, that by merely raising this issue, the Right will accuse you of "playing the race card". LOL

LibShooter wrote:You are aware, however, that by merely raising this issue, the Right will accuse you of "playing the race card". LOL

Hah! I've been accused of worse.

It is true that we get accused of that any time we suggest that race just might have something to do with our history or our current predicament.

But the even bigger taboo is to raise the issue of class...

Fukshot wrote: GnG, ever record a version of Hall of the Mountain King?

Too much repetition not enough chord changes. I'm a Cole Porter kinda gal.

Although I did record a piece of the Polovtsian dances by Borodin.
http://www.myspace.com/sharylsmithguita ... e-18655186

larrymod wrote:

LibShooter wrote:You are aware, however, that by merely raising this issue, the Right will accuse you of "playing the race card". LOL

Hah! I've been accused of worse.

It is true that we get accused of that any time we suggest that race just might have something to do with our history or our current predicament.

But the even bigger taboo is to raise the issue of class...

We are the 99%!!! If there was one thing Occupy wallstreet actually did it was raise class conscience.

Wow guys, great discussion!! This is why I missed this place; well thought out intelligent responses.

rolandson wrote:Time to publish Pax...you have defined the typical frightened, white, middle class american male's perspective on the universe in terms the typical frightened white middle class american male can understand.

There is either a pulitzer or a nobel in there for you.

This made me LOL, thanks!!!

A very thought provoking thread indeed. I hadn't even considered the race angle to the 2A.

Very good points, Larry. I think punkin and Gendo have points about the origin, but I also think that in the minds of the founders various motivations for armament were likely not mutually exclusive. I think pointing out that there was a link between slavery and the perception that arms in private hands were a means of ensuring stability is worthwhile.

I love this place.

Fukshot wrote:Very good points, Larry. I think punkin and Gendo have points about the origin, but I also think that in the minds of the founders various motivations for armament were likely not mutually exclusive. I think pointing out that there was a link between slavery and the perception that arms in private hands were a means of ensuring stability is worthwhile.

I love this place.

indeed, and there's probably a lot more that hasn't been stated, like, guns are are fun, and self defense, and national defense. I mean if overthrowing a tyrannical government was the only reason, we could probably have gotten rid of the second amendment by now.