Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: "Right To Bear Arms"  (Read 55751 times)

my stepson my lover

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #70 on: May 31, 2007, 07:17:09 AM »
"Real men" carry "big sticks"

"That's not the Indian way. That's not the way of a man." A man is a warrior and a warrior is someone with a gun. And anyone who's studied Freud knows what a gun is.

What's the corollary to this position? If you're not a man, you must be a woman, right? Or should I say a squaw? The ultimate insult in our society is to call someone gay -- i.e., to question his manhood. The issue comes up over and over in popular culture, where our heroes solve their problems with guns and fists.

Insecure masculinity has been a major force in history. Sexually insecure men often seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power. "But he was a man!" a trembling Richard M. Nixon affirmed of Theodore Roosevelt as Nixon concluded his rambling talk to the White House staff at the time of his resignation in 1974. There can be little doubt that the disgraced president had himself in mind as he referred to this particular predecessor.

Insecure masculinity was a major motivation for several other 20th century presidents, from Teddy Roosevelt at the century's beginning to Bill Clinton at its end. The Republican Roosevelt is a prime example. One reason for Roosevelt's concern about proving his manhood was his feeling of shame that his father had paid for a substitute to fight in his place during the Civil War. Roosevelt spoke of almost everything in sexual terms. He said war was a necessary arena for the display of "manly virtues" and frequently referred to adversaries as "eunuchs" or "impotent." And it does not take a Freudian imagination to understand why Roosevelt used the "big stick" as his metaphor for military might.

Similar anxieties appear to have driven John F. Kennedy and his disciple Clinton to try to show their manhood by treating women as disposable playthings. And it could be argued that Lyndon B. Johnson took the nation into a war that he knew would be disastrous partly out of a desire to prove his manhood. "There's not anything that'll destroy you as quick as pulling out," Johnson told Sen. Richard Russell in 1964. "They'll forgive you anything except being weak. We've got to conduct ourselves like men." As had Roosevelt, Johnson often described male opponents of his war policy by names that indicated they were like women.

The macho mouths whose combat experience most often consists of battles for talk-show ratings would have you believe that it takes great courage to bang the drums of war, whereas it is cowardly to speak the language of peace and diplomacy. I'm sick and tired of those old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. You know that male private part Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have not been in a war and will not fight in this one they are planning. George W. Bush hasn't been in a war either, of course. He dodged Vietnam by enlisting for a cushy stateside position in the National Guard. So much for America's brave and bold leaders as the new century unfolds.

IONLYKNOWY

  • Guest
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2007, 10:28:47 AM »
way to copy and paste, retard..

www.bluecorncomics.com/usmacho.htm


alright, you go through life without a weapon to protect your family.. but if you step in my house intending to do harm to my family, don't expect to live to tell about it.. 

IONLYKNOWY

  • Guest
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #72 on: May 31, 2007, 10:34:20 AM »

What everybody seems to forget is that these killings sprees that happen are only a very small percentage of the actual amount of gun crime in America. 


Let's make sure that at least these killing sprees do not happen, then!

Quote

Since guns are invented and exist.. there is no way to control it.. there will always be guns.  If we outlaw guns then guess what automatically becomes the next most profitable illegal trades, you guessed it GUNS. 


Not really! Your "gun mentality" is twisting things to make it look like that! Why do you assume that people need so badly guns, in the first place? Why do you think people like guns just a little bit less than drugs?!

Quote

As long as there is a criminal wanting to buy a stolen gun, then there will be someone willing to smuggle and sale these guns.. Think about it.


Criminals are encouraged to use guns (legally or illegally obtained) when they live in a society that promotes violence and artificially creates constructs about the necessity of having guns sold legally.

Yes yes I know that life imitates art.. BUT, a gun is an effective deadly weapon.. it is small and can be concealed.. it has a long range so you dont have to be close to your target.. and the intimidation factor is also there.

Even if criminals were encouraged not to use guns, they still would.  What else would they use when they are robbing you and your family?  A paper cutter?  An RPG?  What?

What would you use if you wanted to rob someone?

You probably have never been robbed or rapped before have you... if you had, you might have a different view..

Criminals will always want to use guns, and they will always have access to them, through illegal gun sales and smuggling.  If they have guns, and they know you don't have guns.. then this will only embolden them.

If criminals have guns, then I want to have the right to have a gun.  It is my constitutional right.

internist

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #73 on: June 03, 2007, 01:51:54 AM »

[...] and if guns become illegal to obtain, therefore making them hard to steal.. then illegal gun smuggling will shoot through the roof. [...]


So according to you, we allow guns to be sold legally so that they can get stolen in order for them not to be smuggled?!


This guy/gal is indeed a dumb @ # ! *, caviard!

christy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #74 on: June 03, 2007, 03:12:52 AM »

"Real men" carry "big sticks"

"That's not the Indian way. That's not the way of a man." A man is a warrior and a warrior is someone with a gun. And anyone who's studied Freud knows what a gun is.

What's the corollary to this position? If you're not a man, you must be a woman, right? Or should I say a squaw? The ultimate insult in our society is to call someone gay -- i.e., to question his manhood. The issue comes up over and over in popular culture, where our heroes solve their problems with guns and fists.

Insecure masculinity has been a major force in history. Sexually insecure men often seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power. "But he was a man!" a trembling Richard M. Nixon affirmed of Theodore Roosevelt as Nixon concluded his rambling talk to the White House staff at the time of his resignation in 1974. There can be little doubt that the disgraced president had himself in mind as he referred to this particular predecessor.

Insecure masculinity was a major motivation for several other 20th century presidents, from Teddy Roosevelt at the century's beginning to Bill Clinton at its end. The Republican Roosevelt is a prime example. One reason for Roosevelt's concern about proving his manhood was his feeling of shame that his father had paid for a substitute to fight in his place during the Civil War. Roosevelt spoke of almost everything in sexual terms. He said war was a necessary arena for the display of "manly virtues" and frequently referred to adversaries as "eunuchs" or "impotent." And it does not take a Freudian imagination to understand why Roosevelt used the "big stick" as his metaphor for military might.

Similar anxieties appear to have driven John F. Kennedy and his disciple Clinton to try to show their manhood by treating women as disposable playthings. And it could be argued that Lyndon B. Johnson took the nation into a war that he knew would be disastrous partly out of a desire to prove his manhood. "There's not anything that'll destroy you as quick as pulling out," Johnson told Sen. Richard Russell in 1964. "They'll forgive you anything except being weak. We've got to conduct ourselves like men." As had Roosevelt, Johnson often described male opponents of his war policy by names that indicated they were like women.

The macho mouths whose combat experience most often consists of battles for talk-show ratings would have you believe that it takes great courage to bang the drums of war, whereas it is cowardly to speak the language of peace and diplomacy. I'm sick and tired of those old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. You know that male private part Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have not been in a war and will not fight in this one they are planning. George W. Bush hasn't been in a war either, of course. He dodged Vietnam by enlisting for a cushy stateside position in the National Guard. So much for America's brave and bold leaders as the new century unfolds.


So basically Americans fear they'll judged they have no male private part in case they restrict themselves from legal gun ownership?

thomson west

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #75 on: June 05, 2007, 01:13:02 AM »

The average payment for a "hit" is $15,000 -- what a shame! I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


??


Exactly, it's not clear why the OP makes such a comparison .. the "analogy" is not at all correct, in that when you marry someone to make him/her an American citizen you increase by one the number of people of this country, while when you "hit" someone you reduce by one that number.

razorlaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #76 on: June 12, 2007, 04:51:07 AM »

So basically Americans fear they'll judged they have no male private part in case they restrict themselves from legal gun ownership?


Something along those lines, christy, although I would not put it exactly in the words you did :)

m o t h e r b o a r d

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Violence is the American Way
« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2007, 06:58:50 PM »

Through merchandising and manipulation, we bully vulnerable, uninformed children into believing guns are cool, violent movies are cool, hate-filled lyrics are cool, bloody video games are cool, and smashing, crippling confrontations in sports are maybe not cool but at least fun to watch. We call upon teens and preteens to grow up too soon, before they can perceive the line between fantasy and reality, and then we sob and wring our hands and wonder what went wrong when they cross the line. Society is the biggest bully of all, shielding by 1st and 2nd Amendments, the purveyors of violence who profit at the expense of the human dignity.


Amen! Couldn't have said it better!

so leb dein leben

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #78 on: June 20, 2007, 03:01:20 AM »

[...] I mean, for $15,000 you can actually marry a person and make him/her an American citizen!


$5,000 should be enough I've heard.



mas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: "Right To Bear Arms"
« Reply #79 on: June 23, 2007, 07:19:37 PM »

$5,000 should be enough I've heard.


lol ;)