do gun advocates ponder... nonviolence?

[G_j]

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:53 PM - Edit history (2)

not everyone feels they NEED guns to be free..

http://mlkday.gov/plan/library/background/principles.php

Six Principles of Nonviolence

Taken from Kingian Principles of Nonviolence, The King Center.

Principle One: Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people
•It is active nonviolent resistance to evil.
•It is aggressive spiritually, mentally and emotionally.
•It is always persuading the opponent of the righteousness of your cause.
•It is only passive in its non-aggression toward its enemy.

Principle Two: Nonviolence seeks to win friendship and understanding
•The end of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation.
•The purpose of nonviolence is the creation of The Beloved Community.

Principle Three: Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice not people
•Nonviolence recognizes that evil doers are also victims and are not evil people.
•The nonviolent resister seeks to defeat evil not people.

Principle Four: Nonviolence holds that suffering can educate and transform
•Nonviolence accepts suffering without retaliation.
•Nonviolence accepts violence if necessary, but will never inflict it.
•Nonviolence willingly accepts the consequences of its act.
•Unearned suffering is redemptive and has tremendous education and transforming possibilities.
•Suffering has the power to convert the enemy when reason fails.

Principle Five: Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate
•Nonviolence resists violence of the spirit as well as the body.
•Nonviolent love is spontaneous, unmotivated, unselfish and creative.
•Nonviolent love gives willingly knowing that the return might be hostility.
•Nonviolent love is active, not passive.
•Nonviolent love is unending in its ability to forgive in order to restore community.
•Nonviolent love does not sink to the level of the hater.
•Love for the enemy is how we demonstrate love for ourselves.
•Love restores community and resists injustice.
•Nonviolence recognizes the fact that all life is interrelated.

Principle Six: Nonviolence believes that the universe is on the side of justice
•The nonviolent resister has deep faith that justice will eventually win
•Nonviolence believes that God is a God of justice.

[judy]

1. And not just gun lovers...

Could we ever envision nonviolence?

Nonviolent revolutions are the only ones that work.
And one doesn't even have to be religious, or believe in any kind of God. It is the pragmatic truth that only nonviolence will solve problems of violence or terrorism.

http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/articles/oct0801.htm

"In addition to acts of overt physical violence, Gandhi primarily emphasizes multidimensional foundational structures and diverse kinds of violence: economic violence, psychological violence, linguistic violence, social violence, cultural violence, religious violence, educational violence, and so forth."

This country's culture operates on the basis of violence, and violence, revenge, hatred are considered normal and good (as long as you hate the right person)

[Eleanors38]

5. "As long as you hate the right person." How very true.

[Recursion]

15. Nonviolent revolutions are the only ones that work

You surely don't actually mean that, right?

[judy]

59. Yes, absolutely, I did mean that!

Violent revolutions imply the maintenance of power with violent means and usually end up in useless massacres and/or dictatorships.
Compare for example Egypt and Syria. Which revolution is the most successful? Considering of course that the Egyptian one is ongoing as well.

[Ron Green]

2. Every church in every town

ought to be about this, every day.

[Eleanors38]

3. "Gun lovers." Being from the South, I took a start, there...

Though there is certainly less of it, a fill-in-the-blank moment passed through my mind.

What makes you think we "______ Lovers" don't already "ponder" non-violence? The community of gun-owners is already a peaceful lot in terms of crime rates.

MLK was fully aware of the need to defend family and home, and warned against confusing this with a general approach to non-violence. One can argue the means of defense (Gandhi's ahimsa, for exp.), but defense is an obligation in the view of both men. Do you agree?

[G_j]

6. changed to "advocate".. I don't recall MLK jr. and his supporters ever taking guns into situations

where they were in serious danger of being shot themselves, though from what I understand, his body guards sometimes carried.

While a certain group who thinks they need guns to possibly fight the government and also openly call me (a "liberal&quot the enemy too, I will feel uneasy.

[Eleanors38]

9. I appreciate the change, even though it was of the "smaller caliber" flip-offs...

gun-owners have gotten in recent days.

King, of course, applied for and was denied (Jim Crow extended thoroughly into RKBA in the South) a concealed-carry permit in Birmingham after his house was bombed. Wisely, he disavowed arming himself as leader of a non-violent movement (and it was at least through Selma and the BP break-off). His home was, however, surrounded thereafter by heavily-armed supporters, including Fannie Lou Hamer.

I have been in many CR & peace demos since the 60s. We need more of them! I am also a strong advocate of the Second Amendment.

Thanks for the civil discussion, so rare.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. Look up the Deacons for Defense

[PoliticAverse]

51. The Washington Post had a recent article on the Deacons...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/on-mlk-holiday-walking-for-civil-rights-and-the-second-amendment/2013/01/15/c00f816c-5f54-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

[hack89]

4. Because all gun owners are inherently violent? nt

[G_j]

7. no, most PEOPLE can be

inherently violent. Since guns are an instrument of violence, I thought it possibly an avenue of discussion.

[dawg]

8. I'm sure there are some non-violent gun lovers out there.

Target shooting is lots of fun for some people, and it's not inherently violent. The problem comes in when some people insist that their hobby be given precedence over legitimate public safety concerns. We banned lawn darts, for crying out loud. There is no reason to oppose common sense regulation of gun rights.

[Lurks Often]

10. But the common sense you invoke is subjective

The vast, vast majority of gun owners are non-violent.

And I'm not sure I can explain this fully, but for those of us who have been paying attention to gun politics and gun legislation for decades, we see the same individuals over and over again (Senators Feinstein & Schumer, Representative McCarthy out of NY, Mayor Daly and now Mayor Bloomberg spring to mind) pushing the same things they did 15-20 years ago.

It doesn't matter that violent crime has been trending downward for almost 20 years. Just about every year we see "reasonable" & "common sense" legislation that would infringe about the rights of millions of Americans (some 80 million if you believe the numbers). The words "reasonable" & "common sense" have been used so often in conjunction with gun control legislation that is has become almost a code word or phrase for "we're about to try and screw you over again"

Semi-automatic handguns and rifles have been around for a 100 years and magazines holding more then 10 rounds have been around since at least WWI.

Enforce the existing laws against straw purchases (10 years in jail and a $250,000 fine), put people using guns in a crime in jail for a long time (Project Exile in VA), go after any felon that tries to buy a gun and is denied through a NICS background check and send them back to jail.

[marions ghost]

12. old arguments

don't work anymore.

yeah, you're really screwed over. here comes the waaaaahhhmmmbulance.....

[Lurks Often]

13. Get back to me on that when both branches Congress refuses to pass anything n/t

[marions ghost]

14. And your point is....?

And so why are you whinin if you think you'll get your way? Congress is messed up--duh. Your point is....?

(Hint--there's a contradiction here).

[Lurks Often]

16. Thanks for another fact free post

[marions ghost]

18. Didn't think you had any point

You don't believe Congress will do anything, but everybody's being so mean to those poor mis-underestimated gun owners?

[dawg]

19. You're right, it is subjective.

I favor closing the gun show loophole, imposing waiting periods of up to one week on first-time purchases, and limiting magazine capacities.

People are very emotional about this issue, because they want so hard to believe that something can be done to prevent tragedies like the mass-shooting at Newtown.

[Lurks Often]

21. Some comments

First, I appreciate you being polite and willing to discuss the issue like an adult.

There is no "gun show loophole", a firearm bought from a FFL or transferred over state lines requires going through a FFL, that is Federal law.

In state transfers between two residents of the same state is governed by State law, which varies from state to state. CA I believe requires a FFL to perform the transfer of any firearm. CT requires a NICS check for the sale of a handgun, but not a long gun. (CT has it's own NICS system).

The one week limitation on first time purchasers cuts both ways. Yes it might stop someone from buying a gun and using in a crime the same day, but it might prevent an abused significant other from buying a gun and they end up murdered by the abuser.

I disagree on limiting magazine capacities, especially to some arbitrary number. I don't feel it would have changed anything in any of the mass murders and in some of those mass murders a 10 round magazine was used and in the case of Loughner and Holmes, the jamming of the aftermarket magazine led to Loughner being jumped by several bystanders and Holmes dropping the rifle and switching to the shotgun and handguns he had.

[dawg]

23. I think you make some very good points. Here is my take ...

It is my understanding that guns may be purchased without background checks at gun shows in many states. If that is indeed the case, I think that should be changed.

As for waiting periods cutting both ways, I believe an abused spouse would be much better served by resorting to something other than a first-time gun purchase. She (or he) is probably more likely to get killed with that gun than to effectively defend herself. I actually think the waiting period would be the most effective form of gun control, because it might help curb crimes of passion by giving people a cooling off period before they do something rash. And really, this is the type of gun violence that might actually be preventable. Madmen are much harder to prevent because they are irrational and unpredictable.

I think limiting magazines would be beneficial, but not all that beneficial. It will only help in the case of a madman who doesn't plan very well. He just loads up, heads to the mall, and empties his gun. In such an instance, it would be much better if he had only 12 rounds as opposed to 100. On the other hand, if he's a planner, all the smaller mags do is to change his tactics a little. We both know how quick and easy it is to preload replacement magazines and swap them out. Still, just for the reduction in destructive potential when someone snaps, I think the magazine limit should be done. It really isn't all that much of an inconvenience (unless you're talking about the folks who want to go down to 3 ).

[Lurks Often]

24. Comments

"It is my understanding that guns may be purchased without background checks at gun shows in many states. If that is indeed the case, I think that should be changed."

Only if it is between 2 residents of the state the gun show is in and state law does not require background checks, otherwise it has to go through a FFL.

"I believe an abused spouse would be much better served by resorting to something other than a first-time gun purchase. She (or he) is probably more likely to get killed with that gun than to effectively defend herself."

I have always been somewhat skeptical of the more likely to get killed with that gun than to effectively defend oneself argument, especially for an abused significant other. Restraining orders don't work, the police won't get there in time, which doesn't leave the abused significant other a lot of options other then hiding for the rest of his/her life.

"limiting magazines would be beneficial, but not all that beneficial"

since a great many shooters use magazines of more then 10 rounds for the more action oriented shooting sports, such as IPSC, 3 Gun, Plate shoots, you'd be infringing on the rights of a lot of shooters who haven't done anything wrong to minimal effect.

[G_j]

33. "..magazines holding more then 10 rounds have been around since at least WWI."

So has mustard gas..,

[Lurks Often]

38. and you can make certain types of chemical weapons

out of common household chemicals, yet those household chemicals aren't banned.

[G_j]

39. Don't you think it would be better

if somebody could manufacture chemical weapons so all responsible citizens can have them if they wish?

[Lurks Often]

40. That's a pretty pathetic post n/t

[G_j]

41. Thank you

It was a task to reach the nonsense level of the previous one.

[rustydog]

11. Hell no! I don't know one personally who has had to use their CCW

but the phrase I ALWAYS hear when they retell their "encounters" is "THANK GAWD I WAS PACKIN"!!!!"

No, they didn't display the weapon to discourage the evilly-intended one, they were just happy they were packin"!

It does not make you safer, IT MAKES YOU FEEL SAFER.
Feeling safer and BEING safer are two completely different things people.

[tama]

53. The Fear is real, however

and the big underlying problem that no partisan politics and legislation can solve.

[Bake]

17. Yes, I ponder it, as an ideal.

Nonviolence recognizes that evil doers are also victims and are not evil people.

I'm not sure on a day to day basis I can do that. If someone is trying to break into my home in the middle of the night, I can safely assume he's not there for a social call. I don't see him, hard as I my try, as a victim. At that point he's the enemy, and likely evil.

And if it's him or me (or my family), it's gonna be him.

Bake

[Taverner]

20. That is why I don't own a gun

I never want to kill somebody. Even if they are trying to kill me.

[spin]

29. People often ask me about buying a firearm for self defense ...

as they know that I enjoy target shooting handguns.

I always first ask them, "Are you absolutely positive that you could shoot another person to stop an attack that might put you in the hospital or six feet under."

If they sate that they only want a firearm to threaten an attacker with, I point out how foolish this is. If you do something stupid like this there is an excellent chance that the attacker will take your firearm from you and kill you with it.

Now I do own firearms for self defense. Fortunately I have never been in a situation in which I had no other choice but to shoot a person who wished to seriously injure or kill me. This action is not as easy as it sounds by any means. Based on how I have reacted in tight situations in the past I honestly believe I could pull the trigger of my weapon in a life or death situation but it is the last thing I hope I will ever have to do. Not only may I face legal expenses and a possible lawsuit that will ruin my savings but I likely will suffer from the psychological aftereffects and trauma caused by the incident.

I also never feel superior to a person who tells me that he could never shoot another person. In fact I have a certain amount of admiration for him. This would be a far better world if all people held that view.

[Taverner]

30. I've known people who killed in self defense

And they still feel guilty.

[spin]

32. Of course they do and they may feel guilt for the rest of their life. ...

It would be wise for anyone who shoots another person in legitimate self defense to seek professional counseling.

[Paladin]

22. Nope. (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. You cannot know that for certain given the evidence available to you.

Perhaps they have, but chose a different course of action than you would.

[Paladin]

50. Sorry, But I'm Not Bound By Your Rules Of Evidence.

And I think it's a bit presumptuous of you, making a sweeping assumption of just what evidence you believe I have access to. Back off a little, OK?

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Without evidence, *any* claim is no different than religious faith.

One can respect the right to make it, but we are not obliged to accept it as established fact.

[aikoaiko]

25. Most of the gun people I know hope to never use their weapons on people

I know there are those who do, but they are not among my circle of shooters (who include people who train for SHTF situations).

[bvar22]

26. My Wife & I are non-violent, advocates for non-violence,

...and we own guns.

We live in a very rural area (Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas) surrounded by National Forest.
We are committed to living as sustainably, independently, and Green as possible.
We grow most of our own food,
keep chickens and Honey Bees,
Veggies, Fruit Trees and various cultivated Berries.
Next year, we are going to add either a few yearling calfs, or pigs, or sheep (haven't decided which yet).

We are Liberal FDR Working Class Democrats who own several long guns, and a hand gun.
We maintain them, and shoot them at least twice a year on our rural property.
We keep them all loaded, readily accessible,
but out-of sight and covered on a wall rack in the back hallway.
(We have no children or adolescents in our home.)

I have used them to protect ourselves, our property, our stock and our pets,
and will do so again if the need arises,
though I prefer to Live Trap & Relocate.

At the current time, we are not hungry enough to hunt,
but would do so if the need arises,
and will have the necessary skills and tools to do so effectively and efficiently.
That was Part-of-the-Deal we made when we moved out here from the Big City in 2006.

We recently raised a rescue fawn,
and LOVE her dearly,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1182456
but we also have venison in the freezer (gift from a neighbor)
and would hunt deer (but not THAT one) if necessary, though we prefer Game Birds.
Such is LIFE.

This life is not for everybody.
In addition to all the normal activities associated with daily life,
living out here we also must be:

*sewage maintenance and repair workers

*safe waste disposal experts

*Environmental Protectors

*operate and maintain our own water works and water delivery system

*health inspectors and vets for our Chickens and HoneyBees

*wildlife management and control

*Building Planning, Repair, & Maintenance

*Power production and power plant management specialists
(We are currently on the Rural Electric Grid, but will be 100% independent in the near future. We have lived 100% solar in the past.)

*First Responders
(My wife is currently the only Medical First responder for over 60 square miles
We are both active FireFighters and Emergency Responders)

and last, but not least,

*Emergency Law Enforcement and Protection
While 9-11 DOES answer, it takes over 20 minutes for emergency help to arrive.


Neither of us has or wants a Concealed Carry Permit,
or carry guns when we leave the property,

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Not for me. If some violent street criminal is about to attack me, he will get a violent response.

Even a kitten will scratch and bite if it is attacked.

[still_one]

28. Why would they?

[slackmaster]

31. I've practiced nonviolence all my life

You have a distorted and biased view of "gun advocates" IMO.

[bajaman2013]

34. hahaha no

i have never met a gunnut that practiced any form of non-violence. owning a weapon is an inherently violent action and I don't care what you claim you need it for. if you 'country folk' think you NEED an assault weapon to live out in the country and keep you safe from tigers lion and bears, maybe you should move to a CITY.

[bvar22]

35. I had to work for 30 years to get OUT of the city.

We aren't going back.


Why don't you visit us next August,
and show us how to remove a rabid skunk from the hen house non-violently?
I would pay to watch THAT,
and you would be famous after I uploaded the video to YouTube.

[bajaman2013]

36. haha

yeah like I'm going to leave civilization to pal around with a hick. I've never left miami and i don't plan on it, thank you. you have fun out there in the middle of fly-over country.

[bvar22]

37. "I've never left miami and i don't plan on it,"

Your ignorance of the World shows.
Thank You for your embarrassing display on behalf of everyone who reads this thread.

BTW: I've been to Miami and most of the Great Cities of North and South America,
so my opinion is valid.
Since you claim to have never been here,
you opinion is just ignorance whining in the dark.

[Glassunion]

46. +1

[tama]

56. Have you ever given thought

to where from and how food etc. comes to urban "civilization"? And that the relation between self-sufficient rural life and dependent urban life is based on structural violence? Kings and priests etc. more equals than others urban "superiors" refusing to work to support themselves and their families and using violence and threat of violence to rob and tax their livelihood from peasants.

I don't believe you mean harm and just speak from limited experience, the way you have raised, but as fossil fuel based industrialized agriculture is coming to end, it's worth while giving a thought to relation of rural and urban ways of life and how they could be organized non-violently, including healing causes of self-destructive violence towards Mother Nature.

[baldguy]

42. Never crossed their minds.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. How would you know? Is it unpossible that some might just not agree with you?

I'd recommend you research the theory of "false-consensus effect/bias". It explains much about
the sorts of people that claim to 'know' what others think....

[baldguy]

49. I can see some annoying troll has replied to my post.

Thank Jeebus for the ignore function. It really keeps the stupidity down to a dull roar.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. Poor, poor you. Having people disagree with you is *such* a burden...

[krispos42]

43. All the time

However, the principle of nonviolent macro political change is far different from the principle of an individual struggling against greed or hate based violence on the micro scale.


In other words, non-violence worked when MLK Jr. and Occupy was trying to make political change. It won't work when a mugger or a rapist lunges at you in an empty parking garage.

I don't foster any illusions about some kind of armed rebellion or whatever against the federal government. Maybe some RW militia types do, but it's not something THIS gun nut things about.

[MicaelS]

48. As I gun owner, I pondered your link.

And there is absolutely no way I would ever agree with Principle Three, ever.

Sorry, people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, WERE evil people, they were not victims of anything.

[tama]

52. Non violent communication

Assumptions
NVC trainers Inbal and Miki Kashtan characterize the assumptions underlying NVC as:[4]

All human beings share the same needs
Our world offers sufficient resources for meeting everyone's basic needs
All actions are attempts to meet needs
Feelings point to needs being met or unmet
All human beings have the capacity for compassion
Human beings enjoy giving
Human beings meet needs through interdependent relationships
Human beings change
Choice is internal
The most direct path to peace is through self-connection


[edit]Intentions
The Kashtans further offer that practicing NVC involves holding these intentions:[4]

Open-Hearted Living
Self-compassion
Expressing from the heart
Receiving with compassion
Prioritizing connection
Moving beyond "right" and "wrong" to using needs-based assessments
Choice, Responsibility, Peace
Taking responsibility for our feelings
Taking responsibility for our actions
Living in peace with unmet needs
Increasing capacity for meeting needs
Increasing capacity for meeting the present moment
Sharing Power (Partnership)
Caring equally for everyone’s needs
Using force minimally and to protect rather than to educate, punish, or get what we want without agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

It does not much help to deny or demonize or ridicule the fear in society that manifests in many forms, also guns for self protection. Need for safety and security is basic human need, and violent communication creates fear and distrust.

[G_j]

55. +100

Thank you for
Sharing that!

[Zoeisright]

54. They're not advanced enough to understand that.

The gudgeon is proof.