On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 23:19:42 -0400 [log in to unmask] writes:
>In a message dated 6/16/97 4:13:50 PM, you wrote:
><<Be it as it may, I would prefer if the discussion could return to
>something having more immediatly to do with Celtic culture. If it has
>to deal with weapons, why not discuss Celtic weaponry?
>Ok, I'll bite. Was there ever any attempt in any Celtic society to
>limit either the ownership of weapons, or when such weapons could be
>Just a question,
I'll let Ray answer the above.
As to the general discussion...When I came home from the Marine Corps in
1960, my late aunt, who then had a Mom and Pop grocery store which,
though withering on the vine, was the occasional target of punks with
"Jim, you handled guns in the Marines...what do you think? Should I get a
"Well, Peggy...are you willing to kill someone?"
"Oh...I don't want to kill anyone...I just want to protect myself."
"Well...if you aren't willing to kill someone, then don't get a gun. I'm
not saying you HAVE to kill anyone, mind you...But if you draw a gun, you
had better be prepared to use it and using it means the possibility of
killing someone. If you can't do that, then they'll take your gun and
shoot you with it."
I don't favor the complete abolition of guns. On the other hand, other
countries do well enough, thank you very much, without general gun
ownership. In fact, while everyone points to Nazi Germany as an example
of what happens when the population is unarmed...no one seems to be
pointing out that the UNARMED citizens of the Soviet bloc toppled
Communism...toppled the Soviet Union.
Further...I don't think it's quite kosher to call people sheep just
because they feel comfortable without an armed population. My local
State Representative has introduced a bill into the Ohio Legislature that
would allow all "law-abiding" citizens to carry...concealed.
Now isn't that just what we need...several million Wyatt Earps? We get
everyone packing and going for it whenever they feel threatened...or
dissed...or...that's a recipe for increasing gun deaths...most of them
law-abiders who won't shoot straight...if they even get it out on
time...not decrease them. Luckily, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
It's been a while since I've seen the statistics, but it used to be that
the majority of gun deaths were not caused by "criminals" , but by folks
who had armed themselves against...criminals...the New World Order...the
Zionist Occupation Government...or whomever...only to end up blowing away
Daddy or Mommy or one kid blowing away another. If my memory serves me,
it wasn't a "criminal" who massacred those kids at Dunblane...but some
local looney who had armed himself against...what???
There's a certain irony here. 25 - 30 years ago, if you spoke out
against the government...you were some kind of hippie traitor. Remember
[or have you read about] the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968?
Kent State? I recall having a discussion with the local Navy Recruiter,
in a bar, about My Lai [For those of you who don't remember, My Lai was a
massacre.], making comparisons to Custer at the Washita and the
Custerless 7th Cavalry at Wounded Knee and Chivington at Sand Creek. It
was a friendly discussion...former Marine to active-duty Navy. We were
not in total agreement, but neither were we at each other's throats.
Then a guy down the bar interrupted and asked me if I was a com-a-nist.
Hell, if he hadn't been older, I think he'd've attacked me. Now the main
rational for an armed citizenry is distrust and fear of...ta da...that
same government. "Where has all the logic gone...long time passing..."
[with apologies to Bob Dylan or whomever it was that wrote "Where have
all the flowers gone..."]
As I said...I am not in favor of an outright gun ban. I also do not
believe that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to go armed...the
"well-regulated militias" that were needed having been replaced by the
National Guard. I do favor some kind of control over the use of
guns...say an operator's license that would at least require someone to
have some knowledge of gun safety before being able to buy one and to
make getting a gun enough of a hassle that the casual purchaser will be
put off [on the assumption that someone who is casual about ownership
will be equally casual about safety]. And I am not gullible enough to
believe that any of this will take the guns out of the hands of
criminals...any more than a total ban will prevent criminals obtaining
guns or prevent future Dunblanes.
I'll be interested in hearing Ray's response. Of course we could have
Celtic feasts and get into brawls...with sword or guns...over the hero's
portion...or over some slight...or disagreement...or...
Le meas agus beannachta