Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Integral View of Gun Control

Last post 08-28-2006, 5:25 PM by yschachter. 36 replies.
Page 1 of 3 (37 items)   1 2 3 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  08-22-2006, 4:47 PM 4986

    Integral View of Gun Control

    Hi guys,

    It occurred to me this might be another fun place for some controversy. Again, I'm not really sure how I feel about the subject.I'll start it off by noting that my main tension is between the lack of violence that would result from fewer guns being out there and the fact that criminals will have them whether they're legal or not. I'm not all that much of a supporter of the rights of gun owners as such, but maybe you are, and maybe you can convince me I should be.

    Or maybe we've all had enough of wedge issues for now, and would rather find something we all agree on.

    Yotam

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  08-22-2006, 5:40 PM 4989 in reply to 4986

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    I knew this thread was coming! Stick out tongue [:P] Ha. I had the exact same thought as you myself this morning.

    These are "the difficult issues."

    I will comment later.


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  08-22-2006, 6:31 PM 5001 in reply to 4989

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    Okay, here's my first comment, doomed to get me . . . the thread going.

    I don't own a gun.

    I hate guns.

    I think karmically having a gun and/or all the fearful or defensive (to name a few) emotions and so forth locked into my psyche and soul and spirit because of it, . . actually act as an attractor to those situations where I would need one. I opt for the karate type slick superconsciousness if I'm in a bind. So far that has worked good . . . stay out of trouble, no trouble befalls you. It's holonic/karmic wisdom . . . I "think" . . . And trust spirit if it should.

    Also, I think guns make you paranoid.Hmm [^o)]

    That said, it is absolutely essential to realize that allowing free citizens to have guns was a major step past blue.

    Yes, I know blue's don't really realize that . . . but it's true.

    But that's about all I can say on this subject . . . I do know that it was important and is important that the governmen not have that kind of power -leaving citizens powerless. (as if that makes a diff? Couldn't they nuc us anyway? Perhpas it just helps psychologically? Back to the stay out of trouble idea for me personally.)

    And herein lies the performative green paradox. I want freedom -but let's just hand all fire power over to a single, ruling government power.

    Yeah, it sucks. I see both those truths.

    But this is the spiral here.

    Haven't thought about it any further.


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  08-22-2006, 7:32 PM 5011 in reply to 4986

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    Here's a general answer and a personal answer:

    Some things are dangerous, either during normal use or during incorrect use, or both. Therefor, it makes sense to at least try and create minimal qualifications for use of some things. Blanket laws aren't all that effective, but having basic standards is helpful. We license and train people to practice medicine, to drive automobiles, and to fish (um...wait...). So, we should probably license and train people to own/use guns, if nothing else. And, I think the testing for all these potentially dangerous licenses should include psychological analysis, on some level, to help weed out the heavily shadowed folks...

    And, on a personal note, I would rather be killed than intentionally kill, or at least I like to think that I would intellectually (in the heat of things, who knows what my subconscious would do.

    Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
    Turtle
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  08-22-2006, 7:50 PM 5014 in reply to 5001

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    That said, it is absolutely essential to realize that allowing free citizens to have guns was a major step past blue.

    Yes, I know blue's don't really realize that . . . but it's true.

    Would you care to elaborate on this?  Can we imagine a society with strong gun control laws evolving past blue, or do you feel it is a prerequisite to allow citizens to have guns in order to make that memetic leap?  Or do you feel this is true of America and her particular history but not necessarily that of other countries?   

    I question the obvious truth of that statement. 

    arthur


    I am seeking meaningful work.

    bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

    I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

    "You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  08-22-2006, 9:13 PM 5030 in reply to 5014

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    Well, question at will. But, you know, I myself certainly did not see anything "obvious" about it either. Until, all of a sudden, one day, I was walking through a back office at work (where I worked then) saw some crudely made gun ownership rights flyer sitting on a desk and I decided to read it.

    And the first word that really struck me was: Sacred.

    And the next word after that: Right.

    Those were very powerful words I though. Why would someone use them in relation to owning a gun? Hmm [^o)] This right is "sacred?"

    And it got me to thinking, about what the rest of the flyer, crudely made, said. It basically said that if you give the government all of the power . . . your screwed. Hence, sacred right.

    Someone's gonna have the guns. We don't want it to only be the government. We don't want it to only be that the government can shoot us. Our government gives us the sacred right to shoot back. i.e. there will be no Hitler here. There will be no Saddam Hussein's here. Here, and in no other place in the world (at least as far as this reasoning saw -and that is of course, at least a partial truth) our government protects us from itself. Our government says, we will allow you to shoot back if we suddenly get power hungry and try to kill you or your loved ones.

    If we try to kill you, you can shoot back.

    Now, obviously, that had a lot more immediate meaning in 1776 or there abouts. Other governments were trying to shoot us (the people back then, the founding father's of the United States).

    And . . . I gotta tell ya, even now, as I write this, I just can not help but, yes, I'm sorry, get a slight tear in my eye for what that means.

    Now, does that translate into reality in 2006?

    I have no idea.

    I just know that, like, when I saw this flyer I had just recently read the Dalai Lama's Autobiography. And felt the very real reality of what it would be like to have an oppressive government coming, threatening to kill you and openly doing so if you did not submit. And/or just doing so just for the fun of it.

    As an American, I never had to face that in my life. I think I would be quite alright in saying, that with that, then I have been spoiled. I do not know what it is to have your life and country taken over -by another government, by my own. To watch utterly, helplessly as my family, my loved ones, my friends and all that I know is simply taken away, killed, shot, raped, tortured -with NO WAY to fight back. . . I don't know what that is. 

    But when I was able to inhabit that perspective, the reality of that perspective -I did see why this might be called a sacred right.

    All for now.

     


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 5:33 AM 5041 in reply to 5030

    • wicke is not online. Last active: 19 Sep 2007, 12:08 PM wicke
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-26-2006
    • Bristol UK
    • Posts 21
    • Points 345

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    "If we try to kill you, you can shoot back."

    Umm, yeah but if true then that's kinda lip service...the government has tanks, a missile service, a police force etc, the gun you are allowed is pointless. If they tried to kill you they would actually kill you. Plus your point about there being no Saddam hussain or other despotic leader here because you can carry a gun...in Iraq people carried guns, in Afghanistan people were allowed guns.  I think giving you democracy is a more effect way of saying hey, we're not going to attack you, this government belongs to you. (okay, psuedo-democracy).

    It wasn't long ago that the guns of the 'american people' were being used to enforce rape, torture family, loved ones, friends and enforce a government that 'wasn't theirs' on slaves. Was that a sacred right of the 'american people' too? I doubt it. Are not these once-slaves now a real part of 'america' and thus a part of you...perhaps something you should try experiencing psychologically if you think that 'as an american you've never had to face that in your life' - is it not your shadow side if you disown what 'your people' have been through?

    I say all this because i think and feel the argument of yours does not stand up. I hope you don't feel unfairly criticised, my intention is to get you to positively question your stance...i welcome a rational debate and a challenge to my stanceWink [;)]

    My opinion: Guns are a tool of neutral objective value. Subjectively they can be used in a bad way, they can be used in a good way. They can be used for survival, they can be used for manipulation. An integral view of gun control takes all the different uses of the gun into consideration. Integral will find good rules and good exceptions to the rule. In terms of policy making: if guns are found to have a use that is a necessity, that cannot be created by other less-potentially-harmful tools, then it makes sense to keep/make certain gun ownership legal. It makes sense to enforce rules that stop the use of guns that have a negative effect. And to take into account and remedy those who are going to ignore the rules and use the guns in a negative way. It's not easy to do, but hey what are the alternatives?

    One love

    mornin' sunshine
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 6:24 AM 5042 in reply to 5041

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    Out of curiosity, Wicke, what do you think the good uses of a gun are? You imply they can be used for "protection" but doesn't that imply threatening others with harm? Is that somehow different from what the bad use of a gun is?

    Peace. Love, and Bicycles,
    Turtle
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 8:18 AM 5049 in reply to 5042

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    Wicke,

    This is a babbler- that's about all I can do on this subject.

    Slavery was happening all over the world at that time and it was the same worldcentric orange that ended it.

    But does this bring up what might be called, the "mess of the memes?" (or stages in adults and societies as a whole) Orange indeed ended it, but did it also inadvertently allow it to run just a little too rampant at first? (Obviously "a little too rampant" is in comparison with previous blue. Please no reactive criticisms that I am arguing that it is semi-alright sometimes.)

    As Turtle said, and I have said elsewhere, say, with slavery, an orange worldcentric freedom gave blue a big-ass heyday with ethnocentric slavery. It should also just for posterity be noted that even at the time, effectively one half of the US did not condone nor practice slavery-historically "the North"-and it was this side that won the civil war over it.

    You can see that this blue vs. orange history still exists and is very, very strong. The 2004 election map, pretty much tells the story. In fact, an historical comparison is quite shocking. They are basically the same.

    Now with guns, I don't want to have to argue all the ten-gagillion in's and out's of history and/or sociology beause I am no scholar, especially on all the pertinent facts, but it was a step past blue to simply put that into the law -in my crude terms -"the people must have the right to kick the government's ass."

    Smile [:)]

    Now.

    This is a value.

    Again, blue doesn't get it. The blue value is that government. And so, here in America, when you come across those "exercising their God given right!" to "organize a well formed militia" (as the Bill of Rights Grants, along with the right to bare arms) it's really, really funny . . . . because these are the people that get very, very upset about "a world government." Or upset about "immigration" and so forth. Once again, those exercising this worldcentric right/law are doing so from an ethnocentric stance.

    Further, one simply gawks and says "Don't they realize that they were immigrants!?" And, well, no they don't, because they cognitively can not create (or at least very well or accurately reconstruct) their own history, the past in time that led up to them even being here. (I myself am actually only a second generation, US born, Irish!)

    Most worldcentrics I know are either extremely moderate about the right to bare arms, don't bare them at all, or in some extreme cases, I do know of one who has grown very distrusting of the government (or how it is being used) and so, yes, went out and go himself a gun.

    Now me, personally, I said in my opening post, I think this is silly. If the US government, right or wrong, wants to come and get my ass, my gun will not do anything but potentially get me in more trouble! (i.e. if I use it. This is actually part of the argument over the notorious Waco, TX incident. i.e. the government went in and stole their rights, oppressively. How true is that? I personally don't know.)

    And just as you said, and I said in my first post, "they" got ten to one hundred times what I could ever have anyway.

    But the value behind that law is a worldcentric orange value and was put in place as a major step past blue despotism.

    I have said, I do not know what that means now. Certainly the US founding fathers could not imagine an AK47.

    But one last note.

    As is the case with so many things, a massive part of the problem in United Sates now with regard to the use of guns by lower memes and stages (purple and red) has to do with the advent of green and it's major influence in leveling all values leading up to, particularly dismantling (yes) blue, and in it's inability to see the lower stages, simply allow them to run wild and just not get why this is happening. (Meanwhile politically making a lot of the solutions impossible.)

    The street violence that runs pretty rampant now in America, is largely the result of green and did not happen before green. So once again, a higher stage is allowing a lower to run wild and have it's heyday.

    Absolutely, there must be some kind of Integral solution.

    But with all of the particulars and in's and out's -I have no idea what that is.


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 8:53 AM 5053 in reply to 5030

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    I haven't read the more recent posts, but I want to respond to this one for now.

    It seems to me that if you are making an argument that it is necessary to have guns widely available to the citizenry as a fundamental right in order to transcend blue - well, you're making an argument that is crying out for cross-cultural analysis.  In the absence of such data (and I certainly don't have it) I don't know that the conversation can proceed very far on those particular terms.

    However, I will make the following point: according to Don Beck, Canada is more memetically advanced than the USA; while America used to be centered around orange-green to a significant extent, it has recently regressed; Canada, meanwhile, has been centered around green for quite some time now.  Canada and the USA at some point in our histories passed blue center of gravity.  But while the USA did so through violent revolution, in which "the right to bear arms" was  a prominent feature, Canada gradually and non-violently separated from Britain and forged it's own identity.  Sometime during that process we went from blue up to green.  We did not enshrine the right to own guns as a sacred right.

    So there we appear to have a significant counter-example to your argument that the right to own guns is a necessary step to transcend blue. 

    I also offer the following: when you talk about guns as a "sacred right", it sounds to me kind of blue memeish...to put it crudely: WE HAVE THE SACRED RIGHT TO OWN GUNS, IT SAYS SO RIGHT IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR CULTURAL IDENTITY, AMEN.

    For some Americans, the "right to own guns" seems to provoke the same kind of unreflexive reaction that "universal medical care" can provoke in many Canadians.  It's considered an axiomatic, unquestionable truth. I'm not saying this is necessarily true of you, Timelody - in fact, you seems to describe a kind of "conversion experience" on the issue.

    In conclusion, it does seems to me like the right to bear arms is a particular facet of the development of American culture, and may have been necessary in that context; but for other cultures, I suspect, it is not necessarily true.  In all likelihood it depends on a multi-dimensional array of factors and will be different for each culture.

    I would love to hear Jim Garrison and Don Beck talk about this, I bet that would be fascinating.

    spiral out,
    arthur "you can have my computer when you pry my cold dead hands off the keyboard" gillard



    I am seeking meaningful work.

    bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

    I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

    "You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn
    • Post Points: 50
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 9:18 AM 5058 in reply to 5053

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    i once took a handgun course taught by masad ayoob, founder of lethal force institute in new hampshire (http://www.ayoob.com/).  i have never owned a gun, to this day, and borrowed one from masad for the practice training in the course.  one thing that was enlightening to me about the course is that education about and familiarity with guns is higher than ignorance about guns.  that is, even if you never own a gun, it's better to learn a bit about them, such as in a course, and continue never owning one than it is never to learn about handling them.  get yer zone 1 up there!

    i also think it's "higher" what turtle said---that she'd rather be killed than kill---than vice versa.  i used to agree with that before i had a family.  that seems to me to be a crucial question: "would you kill to save the life of another?"  i have been thinking about getting a shotgun or some other long gun for "protection".  i think that i would kill in order to save the life of another, particularly a child.

    the scary thing is that one does not have to be trained before one can own guns, as if all you have to do is load, point, shoot.  as if it was like driving . . . turn the ignition, step on the gas, and steer.

    a lot of the "answers" to the perplexing controversial questions (abortion, etc) seem to end up at the same place . . . more education . . . becoming more integrally informed.

     

    later,

    gene

     

    • Post Points: 50
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 9:23 AM 5059 in reply to 5053

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    You are absolutely right that it does cry out and beg for cross-cultural analysis. But also historical analysis as well -cross-culturally, historical analysis. Because, it seems to me, an argument might be able to be made that "you Canadians" Wink [;)] were able to make a more peaceful transition, because of the blood of "Americans" forging ahead the future at that time- literally fighting off Britain who, the founding Americans did not exactly invite to the party, but came with their full organized guns, ships and artillery to forcefully maintain imperialist blue government control.

    Is this so? I do not know what the history is.

    The only thing I want to present here at all is that there is/was a fundamental orange value behind that original law/right. And you don't need to be blue to understand it as "sacred" although if your blue that would probably be your word of choice. If you value your life and perhaps even better that of your family and loved ones, it is possible to then understand the right to defend them as sacred-as opposed to a government that does not offer you that right, and knows it. (Such as the communist Chinese.)

    There was a certain conversion experience because it is much like the "sickness is all in you mind/ you make yourself sick" idea. That is very easy to say for otherwise healthy people. So too, I realized it is all too easy to say that peace will bring peace when you are not being attacked by a force you have no chance of reckoning with. When you have peace.

    And it would also be very interesting to examine Gandhi in India against the same Brit government. 1, over 100 years post American revolution . . . was it just much easier to hold a peaceful protest? I would have to wager that there might be a lot of argument that it was. i.e. Britan had at least to some extent "learned it's lesson" and 2. now the more awake world was watching?

    PS-America has regressed. Or has an attack simply brought out louder voices from the lower meme? I think both are to some extent true.

    And that is what we are looking for here. What is partial but still true?

    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 9:41 AM 5064 in reply to 5058

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    "would you kill to save the life of another?" 

    The answer is, as always, it depends.  Perhaps more interesting is "of all the situations you are aware of, could it ever be right to take the life of another?" 

    Perhaps more relevant, could it ever be right to wound another to protect someone, yourself included?  Everyone goes straight to death, but guns not only can be used to kill, but to wound.  Every attempt to wound runs a risk of death; so does surgery, though they are not both "apples."  Just some off the cuff thoughts.


    One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time. --Andre Gide

    Hope is as hollow as fear. --Lao-tzu
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 9:47 AM 5065 in reply to 5058

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    coppersun:

    a lot of the "answers" to the perplexing controversial questions (abortion, etc) seem to end up at the same place . . . more education . . . becoming more integrally informed.

     



    absolutely. and whaever is the best healthiest, yet most effective way to "handle" the lower memes/stages. (handle being a generic term - it always seems to come down to the lower memes/stages loosing control or just simply not knowing what they are doing with otherwise extremely dangerous things that worldcentric and early kosmocentric understands. And, of course, we will always have to deal with shadows for all.)

    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  08-23-2006, 9:56 AM 5067 in reply to 5059

    Re: Integral View of Gun Control

    You beat me to it.  But permit me to restate it.

    The Bill of Rights was not created from an amber altitude.  It could not have been created from an amber altitude for the very reasons mentioned by timelody earlier; amber is for the state's control.  The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution too, are orange documents.  Here is the key piece, missing in some of the prior comments: At the time, the presence of the second amendment in the Bill of Rights was a sign of the emergence of an orange worldspace in political organization and social interactions.  At the time, a well-organized militia would be sufficient to challenge the "national" army which really didn't much exist.  Clearly today, my owning a Glock or a Winchester rifle or even an M-16 will not prevent the US gov't from invading my house.  But I don't think we're facing the same kinds of risks of that as our forebears were 200 years ago.  Today we are experience altitude dissonance. 

    As to Arthur's point about Canada, Canada's independence from Britain did not occur in the same timeframe.  In fact, it occurred while Britian's empire was beginning to fall apart in Africa and Asia.  Given that Canada was populated by Brits (at least I assert that that's how it would have been viewed, at least in comparison to Asia and Africa), it wouldn't surprise me if those in control said, "Ah hell, let them have some space to muck about while we sort out India and Africa.  We just don't  have the time to argue with them, so long as they keep paying their taxes."

    Finally, a plug again for an actual integral analysis.  How does gun control map out in four quadrants?  What are the costs/benefits of gun ownership in each quadrant?


    One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time. --Andre Gide

    Hope is as hollow as fear. --Lao-tzu
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
Page 1 of 3 (37 items)   1 2 3 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help