Subdeacon Joe Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Should be required viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHX5lAslnTc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Will Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Kum-bah-yaa .... Pass the smores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashpowder Hal Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 What I heard him say, "The State should have a monopoly on owning firearms, for a peaceful world." I don't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 Yeah, a few of his remarks are a bit odd, but I took them to mean that it shouldn't be brigands and warlords holding arms. And his point that the soldier makes the choice to pick up the gun to preserve the peace is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scatterbrain Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 He said "monopoly on violence", not firearms. I pretty much agree with the guy. He is an idealist (wouldn't it be great if all was goodness and light?), but also a realist (until that day comes, we need guns). That is where hardcore pacifists lose me: they simply ignore the grim reality. Consider that he is primarily speaking of international or regional conflict, or internal strife between large groups. He did not address, positively or negatively, violent crime committed by individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashpowder Hal Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 The good general is from the Netherlands - "Netherlands Dutch gun law is typical of the Western European approach. Firearm possession is not subject to any constitutional protections, but regulated simply in the Arms and Ammunition Act (Wet Wapens en Munitie). Weapons, including firearms, are divided into four categories, and for each of the categories a certain maximum punishment is set for "voorhanden hebben" (possession), and "dragen" (carrying in public). Only citizens who are hunters, members of shooting sports clubs or legitimate collectors may obtain licenses for firearms. In the case of shooting club members they will get a license for category III weapons (a firearms category which includes all non- full automatic firearms up to .50 cal.). Possession is generally limited to 5 firearms per license. Collectors may obtain a license for any category of firearm, including full automatic arms, but stringent rules apply to achieving collector status. There is no limit to the number of firearms a collector may obtain. Generally the collector license does not cover shooting these weapons." The same system that allowed a madman in Norway to commit mass murder because the general public is not allowed to own firearms. Sorry, but humans will never Legislate away evil, and it's evil people that we need to protect ourselves from - Personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Will Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Like I said..... Kum-bah-yaa .... Pass the smores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Phil Peeno #50923 Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 All I got is that the soldier is a cutie as well as the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Mushman Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 So, he was speaking to an audience of highly educated folks, an apparent majority from the liberal arts background, who grew up in a western European backdrop with strict gun control. His subject was based on the "provide for the common defense" concept within a constitutional government. I thought he did an OUTSTANDING job from that perspective in defining it's purpose and the reasoning that it allows all other societal freedoms, advances and protections. The "gun" was simply a recognizable and representative prop for all the "machines of warfare". This was not intended to be an individual gun right speech - I've heard equally good ones on that point. From a military, defense perspective, he neatly and eloquently summed up why I served in the bigger national, international, and societal sense. A bit more than kumbaya IMHO. I'll have a Grolsch - you may keep your smores, thanks Harvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted November 27, 2011 Author Share Posted November 27, 2011 Well said, sir. You summarized what I felt about it but wasn't able to quite articulate. Thank you. So, he was speaking to an audience of highly educated folks, an apparent majority from the liberal arts background, who grew up in a western European backdrop with strict gun control. His subject was based on the "provide for the common defense" concept within a constitutional government. I thought he did an OUTSTANDING job from that perspective in defining it's purpose and the reasoning that it allows all other societal freedoms, advances and protections. The "gun" was simply a recognizable and representative prop for all the "machines of warfare". This was not intended to be an individual gun right speech - I've heard equally good ones on that point. From a military, defense perspective, he neatly and eloquently summed up why I served in the bigger national, international, and societal sense. A bit more than kumbaya IMHO. I'll have a Grolsch - you may keep your smores, thanks Harvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker, SASS #55963 Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 +1 for what Harvey said ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.