peter j ross

Eh? I think most firearms are banned in our country, Dirk.


PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ FSM: http://www.venganza.org/
._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, PJR: http://www.insurgent.org/~pjr/
/ (`---'\ `-. AUK: http://www.netcabal.com/auk/
,-` _) (_, F_P God's Own Newsreader: http://www.slrn.org/

randy gulley

Do you feel that is a good thing or bad thing? Same question to Dirk.

--
Please send submissions for the Carol Gulley FAQ to randy.gulley@gmail.com.

All submissions will be kept confidential, unless you specifically request that
your contribution be attributed to your name or alias.

doug freyburger

Randy Gulley <randy.gulley@gmail.com> writes:


I'm neither but it is an Asatru topic.

The Havamal suggests going armed when out on the road:

38. Leaving in the field his arms,
let no man go
a foot’s length forward;
for it is hard to know
when on the way
a man may need his weapon.

The stanza has many different translations and many different
interpretations, but it does establish that the ancients
thought a free man should carry weapons. Whether this ancient
principle shuld still be present in the modern world, that's
a matter that triggers flame festivals. Asatru is a modern
faith that draws from ancient roots but exactly how exact the
draw needs to be is a matter of individual tastes. Some think
the more authentic the better; some think the more modern the
better; most fall on neither extreme of that spectrum.

There's also the fact that the stanzas should be taken as
metaphorical advice so how literal they are comes into question:

10. A better burthen
no man bears on the way
than much good sense;
that is thought better than riches
in a strange place;
such is the recourse of the indigent.

Clearly the mind was considered a weapon every bit as much as
a physical spear.

woody

I have no interest in living where I'm not allowed to be
armed. At a minimum I'll wear my Buck, and anywhere but
going into town, I'll also wear my Beretta.

Sadly, places like this have become very hard to find.

scottlowther

Woody <woodrowb@hotmail.com> writes:

I've lived both in the People's Republic of California and now in Utah. In
California, I felt like I might need a gun at a moment's notice the whole time
I was there, but was not legally allowed to carry; but in Utah, I feel
completely safe, and can pack whatever weapon I want. One is left to wonder if
perhaps there might be a link.

It is not a recent discovery that the difference between a citizen and a
subject, or between a free man and a thrall, is whether or not you can defend
yourself. This was known before the Lore made it to paper, and since the Lore

romauld

Recently, a script from scottlowther@ix.netARRRcom.com arrived, in which they said:

: I've lived both in the People's Republic of California and now in Utah. In
: California, I felt like I might need a gun at a moment's notice the whole time
: I was there, but was not legally allowed to carry; but in Utah, I feel
: completely safe, and can pack whatever weapon I want. One is left to wonder if
: perhaps there might be a link.

I think there's undoubtedly a correlative link, and there are a certain number
of fair arguments for suggesting a causal one, but I feel that demonstrating a
causal link would be more difficult.

Personally, as I expressed on ARA a while back, my attitude to personal armament
is that anyone trained should be allowed to go armed, coupled with an opinion
that I don't see what's so damn special about guns that someone should be
allowed to wear a Colt cannon on the street when I'm not allowed to carry
my rapier.

~R
--
Romauld - romauld at necrotheque dot dcu
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses
or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not
change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
- Giordano Bruno

dirk bruere at neopax

A good thing in countries with very little in the way of publicly
available firearms already.
Bad in places where criminals already have easy access to guns.
IMO Britain is borderline at present, moving into the latter category.

FFF
Dirk

peter j ross

I don't like restrictions on individual liberty, but I find it hard to
argue aginst a law that reduces the number of schoolchildren
massacred.

Nevertheless, I *will* argue against it. For every Dunblane killer,
there are a thousand innocent gun-users in the UK. Before Dunblane
nobody was worried about gun ownership, but a single incident suddenly
converted everybody who owed a gun into a petotential killer. That's
just silly and hysterical. If the Tories find themselves a better
leader than Flopsy Bunny (or whatever his name is), I hope they'll
reverse that knee-jerk legislation.


PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ Tired of the same old posters in your
._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, newsgroup? Why not visit news.groups.reviews
/ (`---'\ `-. and attract new talent by posting a review?
,-` _) (_, F_P (Please read the posting guidelines.)

scottarrrlowther

Romauld <trap@necrotheque.demon.co.uk> writes:

Agreed. In previous ARA "discussions," the topic always seemed to go off the
rails when someone would post the ridiculous canard about "well, should
regular people be allowed to own nuclear bombs" and the like. However, to me a
reasonable compromise for what arms the citizenry should be allowed to own is

1) The internal policing system (local cops, FBI, National Guard, etc) Can
have whatever weapons they want.

2) Citizens are allowed to have any weapon that *any* branch of the internal
policing system has. if the National Guard has main battle tanks and attack
choppers... then they are legal for schmoes like us. If schmoes like us are
not to have them... why should the cops?

If you dont want to open the Pandora's box of civvie nukes, then make sure
that nukes are not in the possession or under the control of any organization
that bears any responsibility to control the public.

Asatru relevance... I'm digging... ummm... well, I suppose the long ships were
the assault craft of the day, spears were the shotguns, swords were the
assault weapons, tossing axes were the pistols and bows were the Barretts...

I'm sure that thralls were not allowed such weapons. I'm sure that jarls were
allowed whatever they could afford. I ain't no thrall.

doug freyburger

Romauld <trap@necrotheque.demon.co.uk> writes:

It's the modern version. People think guns made blades
obsolete. Like the Marines don't carry knives anymore
or something. Sure, beyond a certain range projectiles
beat blades. Interesting that there is so little
mention of bows in the lore ...

It may be illegal to carry a sword in many places, but
back when I was in college I remember two friends who
carried swords openly and regularly. One just to look
wierd and menacing (It worked, he was mugged once but
never again after he started carrying it. The funny
part is the idiot muggers hit him when he had it
unfinished in his hands. That didn't work out all that
well for the muggers). The other did lots of martial
arts training in a local park and was ignored by the
local police after they saw his student ID card.

So even though it's illegal, just how well enforced are
bans on carrying sowrds? If lots start doing it maybe
well enforced. But if you're one crazy guy in the
whole town, I've seen folks get away with it.

And in combat at a range where a blade beats a gun, it's
the shorter blade that wind anyways. A dagger or
hunting knife seems best at very short range. Lots of
people carry folding blades that are pretty big even
where I work. (It's a tool not a weapon. That's my
story and I'm sticking to it! ;^) And even in places
with thick pedestrian traffic I see the occasional big
belt clip blade that would do fine.

Hail Asgard!
Doug Freyburger