It was the same with Mao and Che and they led the people to victory against the state in guerilla warfare. Such things are possible. Just unlikely. I would rather give it a shot than surrender, if it becomes absolutely necessary.
The two ways for me to get hands on a gun would be either to completely give up privacy to fulfill the requirements of a gun ownership permit (plus the costs and hassle), or to buy one on the black market.
Option 1 is not considerable for obvious reason.
Option 2 would needlessly endanger me because illegal gun ownership is, to my information, a felony around here. Ammo would be hard to get as well, plus, as we all know, black market products tend to be of bad quality, but pretty expensive. I wouldn’t be able to train since those few shooting ranges that exist would probably refuse to let me in without a permit.
Europe rocks.
I don’t try to make a case for pacifism for anyone else, only for myself.
“Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
I used to need to know who I would be willing to shoot. I no longer need to answer that question for myself - I am fortunate in that I have been able, so far, to create one life. I do not think that I could take one.
Where everyone else is, is exactly where they need to be. Some folks are into armed rebellion, that’s cool. I have come to see ALL violence as the embodiment of the state, and violent rebellion as the vehicle by which the disenfranchised seek to become the state themselves.
My experience in these discussions is that there tends to follow a showering of hideous hypotheticals in an effort to goad one who would profess pacifism into conceding some fundamental moral quandary at some point. This is totally understandable. Thus far, it hasn’t changed my viewpoint, but it has helped refine it. I would not kill my own child to save 500 others, and I would not kill 500 children to save my own. It is up to me whether my mind is imprisoned, regardless of where my body is. I choose to be free, so I am.
Wish I could have one, but being underaged and not a ciizen has a lot of limitations when it comes to owning firearms.
I don’t think Tolkien meant this as a justification of pacifism. That whole dialogue comes from Christian views on compassion, forgiveness and non-judg[ement (as in arbitrarily deciding who’s going to die - something that the state does all the time). However, The Lord of the Rings is the book that’s pretty clear on the idea that you do have to fight, and sometimes kill, for your life and freedom.
Out of curiosity, would you be able to shoot to defend your children?
Now, I’m not condemining anyone for being a pacifist. It’s not a bad philosophy (unless it’s forced on others). And I’d rather live next to peaceful people than to violent thugs 
However, I do believe that for a free society to function a large portion should be willing to protect themselves both from criminals and from the tyranny from inside and abroad. To quote Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society.”
I’m suprised so few people here own firearms. I own several, and I carry a pistol on me any time I leave my house (within the bounds of the law, of course). I live in Texas, so my guns are not registered, and though I do have to have a permit to carry my gun, anyone can buy one with a simple background check. I will never need to use my gun (i’m a 6’3 gym rat), but I own it because I can. Because I know how many people died a long time ago to ensure that I can. And because if ever someone tries to negotiate with me using force, I will be able to reply with the only language they would understand. When a criminal (thug or government) says ‘your money or your life’, I choose grant them the only choice they are allowed to make - their own well-being, their own death. Many wont agree with my randian views, but I am not in any way impeding their rights by privately carrying a gun they will never know about. I am only ensuring my own in the manner I best see fit, which I’m sure few on this board would argue with.
If you pay taxes, own property and have a driver’s license you don’t have much privacy anyway. The state knows everything there’s to know about you. If you’re an immigrant, like myself, they also have your fingerprints. At least by buying weapons you’re increasing the number of gun owner so the government may at least pause before passing any laws that upset millions of voters.
Now we’re talking! If I wasn’t already married I’d propose to you right away [;)]
Natalie, that’s generally the first question people ask. Of course, if I profess pacificism, the answer is “no.”
Granted, we are talking in hypotheticals. Hypothetically, my emotions will never get the better of my intellect. In reality, who knows. Like I said, I do have a gun.
I don’t think Tolkien was arguing for pacificism either. But I don’t think he had to be, for that quote to work in the way that I meant it.
Intentionally taking a human life, regardless of the motivation, presents some profound moral quandaries for me that only resolve when I commit not to do it, under any circumstance.
Of course, in order to be at peace with pacificism, one must also make peace with death and loss. However, I think one must make peace with those things to be at peace in general. That’s a lot of "peace"s. Sorry about that.
Now that is a great post.
I don’t think people are inherently comfortable with violence and murder unless conditioned by the military culture. And even soldiers might have psychological issues with justifying their actions.
Fortunately, according to statistics most gun owners don’t even have to shoot anyone: the criminals usually run away at the sight (or sound) of the weapon to find an easier prey
Awww.
I highly recommend The Tao of Physics.
This could open up an historical discussion of the nature of soldiery. I first learned of The Christmas Truce from Lew, and there have been many pieces at LRC talking about how, even through WWII, soldiers didn’t LIKE to shoot each other. The military was pissed, and intentionally took the gentlemen out of the soldier. Also of note that this corresponds to the precipitous decline in literacy among soldiers (and Americans in general) and the rise of the Education state.
Man, the baby’s asleep, the realtor’s coming over, I am supposed to get the house clean, and what am I doing?
The reason it’s better to kill your attacker than simply wound them is simple: a dead attacker can’t sue you for personal injury. Believe it or not that is a common tactic in states, such as Illinois and Massachusetts, where the ownership and use of firearms is greatly limited by the State in spite of the 2nd Amendment prohibition against infringing the right to keep and bear arms. A secondary reason to shoot to kill is that simply wounding an attacker does not necessarily render them harmless. You do not want to allow them another opportunity to continue their attack. It sounds harsh, and it is, but the important point to keep in mind is that it is your assailant who is committing an illegal act and that you have the inherent right of self-defense, no matter how many politicians want to deny you that right.
Just my $.02, which is becoming worth less and less thanks to the efforts of the Federal government.
The family of the dead attacker can sue you too.
In my book, it’s better to be in debt than dead.
This is true and is simply another sign of how screwed up our society has become. [:(] However, it is generally more difficult, at least from the anecdotal evidence, for a family to sue someone who killed a family member that was committing an act of violence against the defendant. If nothing else the jury is more apt to side with the homeowner who was acting to protect himself. The reason, as I understand it, that some of the wrongful injury suits brought by wounded assailants have been won, is that the injured party makes the claim that they did not intend to harm the person who shot them. Somehow, the fact that said “peaceful intruder” was in my home at 3am gets overlooked. No one has ever been able to explain to my satisfaction how things have gotten to such a pass in this country.
And it is for this reason that you move to a place that makes these efforts useless, such as Texas. Here we acquit anyone who uses a gun in defense of self or property (and in a recent case, a man who killed someone who robbed his neighbor was acquitted of all charges brought forth). While its better to be in debt than dead, I wouldnt ever want to live in a place that punished my using force against someone who brought force into my life.
I agree, but, unfortunately, it wasn’t possible in our case 
Do you think Texas would have been better off setting up its own republic instead of joining the US?
Well, we did. While many people argue that Texas never legally joined the US, I feel that this point is useless. If you read the Texas constitution, it is long and oddly assembled, but at the same time, lists all the rights of its citizens rather than the rights of the government. We are a state that respects people’s privacy and ownership of their property and themselves. We have no income tax, and yet somehow with all the states screaming that they’re going bankrupt, we have a (massive) budget surplus yet again. Yes, we don’t have the social programs of places like California or the northeast, but our roads work (many of them privately owned), our deregulated power system has lowered costs for everyone and given people choice, and we manage to attract businesses left and right (only NY has more fortune 500 headquarters in it). If Texas were an independent nation, it would be in the top 10 economies in the world (estimates vary from #5 to #9), and we have every natural resource we need to be a prospering nation. I fully believe that the state should secede from the US and reform the Republic of Texas, though that will never happen. Really the only issue we have is illegal immigration from Mexico, which either is or is not a big deal to you.