Is An Armed Society A Civil Society

[OldTrapper]

While I am a gun owner, and a supporter of ones right to be so, there are some interesting arguments in this article for one to consider.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/

An armed society is the opposite of a civil society.

That incident brought home to me what I have always suspected, but found difficult to articulate: an armed society — especially as we prosecute it at the moment in this country — is the opposite of a civil society.

The Newtown shootings occurred at a peculiar time in gun rights history in this nation. On one hand, since the mid 1970s, fewer households each year on average have had a gun. Gun control advocates should be cheered by that news, but it is eclipsed by a flurry of contrary developments. As has been well publicized, gun sales have steadily risen over the past few years, and spiked with each of Obama’s election victories.

Furthermore, of the weapons that proliferate amongst the armed public, an increasing number are high caliber weapons (the weapon of choice in the goriest shootings in recent years). Then there is the legal landscape, which looks bleak for the gun control crowd

 

[dogtowner]

One could argue that if you were more sure thst those around you.were.armed you migjt behave more.civilly towards them. could we do with less road rage ? foul language ? etc.?

 

[OldTrapper]

One could argue that if you were more sure thst those around you.were.armed you migjt behave more.civilly towards them. could we do with less road rage ? foul language ? etc.?

That is the NRA argument. However, one could argue logically instead where guns actually prevent freedom for all, and hinder freedom of speech. From the article which you should have read in order to understand the entire argument:

"This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech."

 

[Texas_tea]

All one has to do is look at Chicago. Technically, by law Chicago is a "disarmed society" at least the law abiding citizens anyway.

Is Chicago civilized? With one of the highest murder rates per capita in the Country I think is fair to say one could argue it is NOT!

This is just another example of wacko crazy socialist thinking.

You want to know what gives a society civility, Freedoms and Liberties?

The same thing that has been doing so for almost 237 years!

That would be the US Constitution more specifically the Bill of Rights as it is ... unchanged!

Parroting wacko socialists ... Go Figure!

 

[dogtowner]

That is the NRA argument. However, one could argue logically instead where guns actually prevent freedom for all, and hinder freedom of speech. From the article which you should have read in order to understand the entire argument:

"This becomes clear if only you pry a little more deeply into the N.R.A.’s logic behind an armed society. An armed society is polite, by their thinking, precisely because guns would compel everyone to tamp down eccentric behavior, and refrain from actions that might seem threatening. The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech."

without limits ?

try yelling 'fire' in theater to test this notion.

has the freedom of.tantrum served any.purpose ?

 

[OldTrapper]

without limits ?

try yelling 'fire' in theater to test this notion.

has the freedom of.tantrum served any.purpose ?

Noting that you have a reading comprehension problem besides all other faults, the article said "within limits", not "without limits".

Now, would you like to try and address even the basic points the author was trying to make? Do you think if one was on a stage making a speech, and knowing that the audience was filled with armed individuals, it would not hinder their words?

 

[dogtowner]

Noting that you have a reading comprehension problem besides all other faults, the article said "within limits", not "without limits".

Now, would you like to try and address even the basic points the author was trying to make? Do you think if one was on a stage making a speech, and knowing that the audience was filled with armed individuals, it would not hinder their words?

my mistake, red it wrong.

considering the country is already armed and people say the most aggrivating things now, nope.

i believe its called the courage of their convictions.

but i think you confuse free speech with bad.behavior.

 

[Cruella]

I don't see anyone addressing how many murders are committed by hands, hammers, baseball bats, knives, poison etc.

Maybe the reasons behind the murders should be dealt with.

#1 Drugs

 

[dogtowner]

I don't see anyone addressing how many murders are committed by hands, hammers, baseball bats, knives, poison etc.

Maybe the reasons behind the murders should be dealt with.

#1 Drugs

the commerce surrounding the drug trade. thats one area of.commerce the authorities suck at regulating