This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Reliable sources

Re: Reliable sources

Postby deadwhitemale » April 14th, 2009, 4:56 am

Re: the general strike idea, touché.

As for the whole concealed versus open bearing of arms, my state, Kentucky first prohibited the concealed bearing of arms in 1813. That's Eighteen-Thirteen, Napoleon was still breathing then. Many other Southern and southwestern states have or had similar bans on concealed weapons of comparable antiquity. The general thinking behind such laws seems to have gone something like this: "It's a fine, manly thing to go about openly armed, instantly ready to defend the weak or respond to any challenge to one's honor. But only a sneaking footpad or assassin would want to carry his weapon concealed."

Kentucky's flat prohibition on concealed carry by private citizens, even inside their own homes or places of business, persisted from 1813 to 1996. (No permit or licensing system even existed. I mean there was no way to even apply for a permit/license.) Police and certain public office holders (such as, oddly, coroners) were exempt.

During that whole time it was indeed legal, theoretically, on paper, to go about openly armed. Theoretically, you could walk around town all the time with a seven-foot harpoon like Queequeg or a Winchester like Chuck Connors in The Rifleman, and it would have been legal.

The reality was a little different. The police would find a way to make you stop it. Usually you'd be charged with Disturbing the Peace. The other problem with open carry was that it tipped your hand prematurely to any potential aggressors, a certain small percentge of whom were provoked to mindignation rather than deterred by the sight of someone they regarded as their lawful prey going armed. It got worse if you were not very large or tough-looking otherwise. To them you seemed like a small person attached to a large gun, which they figured they ought to be the one holding. "Hey, free gun!" many of them thought as they sneaked up behind some armed citizen standing preoccupied in a check-out line somewhere, writing a check or counting his change.

I'm not actually against open carry. But anyone who does it regularly in public had better have some other tricks up his sleeve in case of a sudden attack and attempted gun snatch. He should also be prepared for frequent tense encounters with multiple heavily armed and jittery police officers.

All in all, I generally preferred to be discreet about it, and to retain some element of surprise, though of course nothing is 100 percent, and there are ways to spot or "make" even someone who is carrying a concealed weapon. Subtle details of dress and posture and bearing, and certain distinctive gestures, may give the game away. This happened to me a time or two, and in at least one case "the other fella" was as indignant at the unfairness of it all as I suppose a wolf would be to discover a rabbit was carrying a derringer in its fur.

I actually had to take some steps to defend myself. This fell short of actually drawing on him, or even threatening him directly. Chiefly I used "tactical movement," suddenly placing a barrier between myself and him, to baffle a sudden charge. He understood he'd been outmanouvered (onemight almost say "check-mated"), and kept his distance, taunting me to shoot. "You ain't got the guts! He bawled. "I can tell just by lookin' at you that you ain't got the guts to look someone right in the eye and shoot!" (qv: Mark "Animal" MacYoung on "Famous Last Words.")

"I always look at my front sight when I shoot," I said.

Finally he stormed off with parting threats of lying in wait outside to ambush me in the dark. However, I had a small but powerful flashlight on me as well, and was able to surveil the likely ambush site before entering it, and he made no attempt to carry this out.

Something I don't think many people quite get is that a pistol is conceptually a defensive arm, made to be carried with no particular expectation of trouble, but just in case there might be. It doesn't necessarily mean its wearer is in any sense "on the warpath" or "gunning for" anyone. A long gun such as a rifle or shotgun, on the other hand, is conceptually offensive in nature, and carrying one in public often means the fight is on, or just about to be.

Huh, I think I am actually paraphrasing someone else here:

' The pistol is the defensive arm. You wear it with no specific action in mind, but when you pick up a rifle you intend to go after something - or someone. Thus the difference in purpose of the two arms is one of concept, and training with either must be carried out with that in mind. The purpose of the pistol is to stop a fight that somebody else started. The purpose of the rifle is to "reach out and touch someone." Thus the objective of the rifleman is to achieve a first-round hit, on an appropriate target, at unspecific range, from improvised positions, against the clock.' -- Jeff Cooper, March 1996

Of course there are exceptions, and many people will use a tool to do a job for which it is poorly suited.

Specialized troops like the Schwarzritters in the European Wars of religion in the late 1500s, and other specialized cavalry units in the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War of the 1600s, did use large wheellock pistols offensively, as "shock" weapons against opposing lance- and sword-armed cavalry, and to break the ranks of infantry pikemen from just outside their reach.

Also, during the American Civil war many cavalrymen on both sides, but especially on the Confederate side, largely abandoned the saber in favor of the revolver (preferably multiple revolvers). This was especially the case with "irregular" cavalry such as Quantrille's Raiders and other "Border guerillas" bands. (qv: the film The Outlaw Josey Wales, and the song "Bad Company," signature song of the 1970s band Bad Company.)

DWM
"It is when we try to grapple with another man's intimate need that we perceive how incomprehensible, wavering, and misty are the beings that share with us the sight of the stars and the warmth of the sun." -- Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim(1899?)
deadwhitemale
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Far Western Kentucky

Re: Reliable sources

Postby Bluegoat » April 14th, 2009, 5:57 pm

IT kind of depends on what type of offensive you want to commit, I'd think? Personally I'd rather have a rifle any day, since I can't actually hit anything with a pistol (mind you, a nasty old army pistol isn't great for anyone) but if I were trying to be sneaky, a pistol might be just the thing. I'm too short to carry a rifle or shotgun in my coat. Not that one ought to commit sneaky offenses with pistols or anything else.
User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Reliable sources

Postby archenland_knight » April 14th, 2009, 6:45 pm

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Reliable sources

Postby cyranorox » April 14th, 2009, 8:36 pm

DWM, a tip of my hat.

AK, where to start? Rachel Corey was run over by an Israeli in a bull dozer. Recheck your thinking on this one.

RE: images of some thugs attacking me? dont be too sure I would need help. but the nasty fantasy shows you all too clearly. Most of the anger you spewed [alors! not even clean flames to toast a marshmallow]! seems to be based on a misreading. the tech stuff about guns and tanks, the hardboiled jargon of 'carrying' or 'heat', the grimy half-swagger of tough guy details, does not assist in supporting what thought there is in your comments.

RE: honor. Nothing you have written supports a claim that pacifists have no honor, nor that they need never make harder decisions than about their own deaths. I'n not sure what you think the founders were willing to lose, besides their lives; fortunes are trivial in this context [cf that creep Ashcroft and 'our sacred fortunes' a delicious slip], and they intended to keep their honor.

RE: the city hall image. I am somewhat oblique; i used an image of an individual as a metaphor for any person in that position. I meant, should someone of your stripe propose a revolutionary takeover, ie, treason, and I stood to oppose it at the city hall door [or any significant place], what would happen? it seems that you would, or at least like to fantasize that you would, impose your will by force and kill me.

RE: new wars. Fascists will not have an easy time; big lies may die in the light of day. the Confederacy was crushed. you leave it a question which side you might be on should war arise.
Apocatastasis Now!
cyranorox
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: a garret over a moonlit street

Re: Reliable sources

Postby Bluegoat » April 14th, 2009, 11:00 pm

User avatar
Bluegoat
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: Reliable sources

Postby deadwhitemale » April 17th, 2009, 2:22 am

"Fascism"? I don't think I understand. Unless it is being suggested that wanting to force an overbearing, intrusive government back into its constitutional cage, or even stubbornly clinging to the few tattered rags of liberty we still have, meets some definition of "fascism" with which I am unfamiliar. The general working definition of fascism I go by is as follows (coming as soon as I can find and post the link).

fas·cism

–noun
1. A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

I'm surprised anyone ever got out of anything I ever said that I was okay with any of that. Calling me an anarchist would be far closer to the truth. Of course, I mean anarchist in just about the most literal, literalist sense (much as Tolkien defined it), of someone wanting no or nearly no government, rather than some sort of socialist or communist or "syndicalist" whose beef is with private property and free market capitalism rather than with overbearing government.

"Suppression of opposition." Yeah, people kept accusing the Bush II administration of that for years, but as far as I can find out ... it never happened. Until now. It's really starting to happen now, now that "dissent is no longer patriotic." Indeed, outright criminalization of belief looms large. We've got the Department of Homeland Security basically saying that about half of the population (the half including the "bitter clingers") should be monitored as potential enemies of the state, as FAR greater threats than, say, Jihadist suicide bombers.


Somewhere up above I referenced Mark "Animal" MacYoung on the topic of "famous last words." Even I had some difficulty rediscovering what I meant to cite, so I don't expect anyone else to have found it. But jut to show I wasn't just making something up, here is what I was referring to:

' Quite literally, if the person the bluffer is trying to scare away doesn't scare, the bluffer will try to escalate it further. And in this mindset, there is only one way to go from brandishing a weapon if the other the person doesn't back off. This is quite literally why the most common -- and stupidest -- last words of people shot in these circumstances is "You ain't got the guts (to pull the trigger)." Don't laugh and don't think we're making it up. It is true.

From an outside perspective, it may seem incredible. But for people caught up in having to "win," this is a common response to the increased posturing via a weapon by the other party. It happens -- a lot. It is equally unbelievable that someone waving a gun around threatening to kill someone a second before is now standing there in shock because he just shot someone. But that too happens -- a lot. In the heat of the moment all sorts of stupid things make sense to the participants ... '


http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/homedefense.html

This linked website is a generally good source of advice. From my own observations I could add a few other "classics" to the list of "Famous Last Words." I mean, things anyone who doesn't want to get into a real fight should never say to anyone.

NEVER say "#%&* you" to anyone in public, unless you know them VERY well. NEVER call anyone in public you don't know VERY well a "mother#%&*er." NEVER employ ANY sort of gross sexual insult against anyone in public. NEVER question anyone's manhood, manliness, courage, or sexual preference(s). NEVER insult anyone's mother, wife, sweetheart, daughter, or other loved one whose safety or honor he feels responsible for.

Last but not least (and I know this is a gesture, not a verbal expression), NEVER give anyone in public you don't know VERY well "the finger," "the bird," or whatever it's called in your neck of the woods. NEVER "flip off" anyone, in traffic, or anywhere else in public. That right there provoked at last half of all the really bad "road rage" incidents you heard about. Other obscene and/or rude gestures are generally best avoided as well.

For my part, I try hard to avoid playing any sort of "monkey dominance games" in the first place. I'm not interested in being at the head of the baboon troop hierarchy. I don't want to be a baboon at all, period. Unfortunately, this does sometimes put me at a disadvantage, when other people are playing such games and I don't immediately get it, or they think I'm playing but I'm not, and don't know that they think I am.

Something of the sort occurred in that anecdote about a brief but tense confrontation in my past. I was not threatening that fellow. I never even drew on him. I mean I wasn't holding him at gunpoint. I personally consider it a very unsound practice to threaten anyone with a pistol. Too many of them will assume you're bluffing, if not immediately then eventually. A weapon openly brandished soon loses much of its power to intimidate. It ought not to be used for intimidation to begin with, and I was attempting no such thing.

All it was, was he unfortunately discovered that I was wearing a concealed pistol. He felt threatened by my armed condition, per se, though I had not threatened him. He was evidently of the school which holds that "If there's a loaded gun around, you should be the one holding it."

I found his belligerent reaction so baffling that I almost failed to recognize the danger and react in time. He seemed to think it was all about "looking someone in the eye" or "staring them down," like in a Spaghetti Western. Hence my comment about "looking at my front sight." That was merely a statement of fact. I doubt he even understood what I meant. I mean I doubt he knew much about shooting a pistol.

The problem may have arisen out of my lifelong aversion to look anyone fixedly in the eye, for any reason. (This trait is apparently innate with me, as it was noted in the "Baby's First Year" journal my mother once kept. It seems to be frequently misinterpeted -- in that case interpreted as timidity or indecision, I guess.

Maybe one reason I don't play "simian pecking order" games is that I actually, literally don't know how. I have wondered if it's some kind of sub-clinical form of autism. I am very literal in my speech, for instance. It is usually better to just ignore my "non-verbals" and "body language," and take what I say pretty much at face value. (Except when I'm obviously speaking figuratively or poetically, of course.)

"Big lie"? Who's employing the Big Lie technique these days? Well, we did start off talking about "reliable sources." And a great deal of what I hear on the TV news every day I just happen to know is not so. They can keep on saying "ninety percent of all guns used in Mexican drug war violence are smuggled into Mexico from the USA" as long an loud as they like, but it'll never make it true, and it'll never justify one single further infringement on Americans' rights.


DWM
Last edited by deadwhitemale on April 19th, 2009, 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is when we try to grapple with another man's intimate need that we perceive how incomprehensible, wavering, and misty are the beings that share with us the sight of the stars and the warmth of the sun." -- Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim(1899?)
deadwhitemale
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Jan 2009
Location: Far Western Kentucky

Re: Reliable sources

Postby archenland_knight » April 17th, 2009, 7:13 pm

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Previous

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 15 guests

cron