Ammo For Sale

« « Chicks and Guns | Home | More gun porn » »

Well, then allow me to retort

Bruce:

I have a news flash for anyone who’s ever uttered the words “Guns have no place in a civil society,”

I don’t have a newsflash so much as the standard response that: without guns, there’d be no civil society.

14 Responses to “Well, then allow me to retort”

  1. Metulj Says:

    “without guns, thered be no civil society.”

    I’d love to see the argument that backs this one up. No links. Your argument.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    I know you’re all cool with feigned hipster intellectual detachment and all but even you’re not that stupid.

  3. Metulj Says:

    Not a hipster.* Not detached.** I’d like to see a cogent argument as to how there would be no civil society without guns.

    *This implies that I am somebody who is hip.

    **Google “rachel pain.” I do what she does.

  4. SayUncle Says:

    very simple: try to imagine your urban lifestyle without the police who are armed. or your country without military, also armed.

    Firearms/weapons take ‘brute force’ out of the equation whether it’s police or grandma telling the burglar to get out of her house.

  5. Metulj Says:

    You are not talking about guns. You are talking about state power. It does not follow that guns/weapons, per se, are how the state derives its power. The threat of violence, in the form of application of power through weapons use, is not found in many aspects of state-subject relations. For example, heath care comes to mind. While it may not be done well in many places, there is no meaningful sense in which one can find the threat of violence as the operative notion behind that relationship between the state and individual. Even in some sort of capitalist* rendering of health care, there is no threat of violent retribution against the individual by the state if one decides to not purchase health care. Likewise, in Western social democracies, the state does not threaten violence if a person does not access health care, though it can easily be seen in both cases (capitalist and socialist) that a person not caring for himself could be injurious to society as a whole because of free-riding (at a minimum an appeal to charity) in the capitalist case and increased social cost in the other case.

    *And no matter how hard one squints there is no sense in which capitalism is not produced by some state structure. At a minimum, society must agree by which the rules that create the artifice of property. Those rules are the state.

  6. SayUncle Says:

    Grandma is the state? Who knew?

    At the end of the day, the state is simply it’s ability to enforce its law and that is done through force. Otherwise, it may as well not exist.

    And healthcare is not a function of the state, generally, so it’s a very bad example. Most functions of the state (tax collection, law enforcement, zoning requirements) are simply a matter of ‘do it or else’.

    Nice try though.

  7. Metulj Says:

    Your conception of what the state is fairly elementary. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be able to get past “It’s the Government.” It’s not.

  8. SayUncle Says:

    yes, it is. we’ve had this conversation before.

  9. Metulj Says:

    Government is not the state. It is a manifestation of the state. There can be states without governments. There can be governments without states.

  10. Cactus Jack Says:

    Metulj Says:

    April 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
    Government is not the state. It is a manifestation of the state. There can be states without governments. There can be governments without states.

    Would you care to show some examples of how there can be a state WITHOUT a government? I’d like to know how that can be possible.

  11. Metulj Says:

    “Would you care to show some examples of how there can be a state WITHOUT a government? Id like to know how that can be possible.”

    A quick examples would be Somalia. The Central Congo. The jungle highlands of Colombia.

  12. SayUncle Says:

    and those aren’t examples of, what’s that term I used, civil society?

  13. Metulj Says:

    Lots of guns. Not much civil society. Gotcha.

  14. SayUncle Says:

    I did not say (and never have) there was a correlation to number of guns and amount of civility. Plenty of other factors determine civility. Weapons and force maintain a society that already is civil. They do not create them out of thin air as that requires far more than guns.

    Nice try, though.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives