tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post480311043506437903..comments2023-10-31T06:32:05.082-05:00Comments on Biblical Manhood: My View of Women - A DisclaimerAnakin Niceguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09175647581810782580noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-47702966126352803212013-10-24T06:22:43.608-05:002013-10-24T06:22:43.608-05:00Hi, this is an article that I wrote on the difficu...Hi, this is an article that I wrote on the difficulties I had in my marriage (feminism) and how God saved it. http://truefeminismnaphtali.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-taming-of-shrew.html#!/2012/11/the-taming-of-shrew.htmlTrue Feministhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00978735297370616551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-46140926562653729362010-11-02T22:15:06.710-05:002010-11-02T22:15:06.710-05:00His comment was to say that women can never be equ...His comment was to say that women can never be equal (because the church is never equal to God, a horrible anology) that leadership is for men and that women shouldn't compete. It was very plain and very limiting: We can't lead, which means the only role for us is following.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-45452633061541500212010-11-02T20:39:46.558-05:002010-11-02T20:39:46.558-05:00All he said was that leadership in church should b...All he said was that leadership in church should be limited to men, and in the home men should be the leaders. By no means was there any indication that women's leadership skills should be stifled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-15702928231844293172010-11-02T18:44:18.032-05:002010-11-02T18:44:18.032-05:00No, but Billy did. And you appeared to agree with ...No, but Billy did. And you appeared to agree with everything he said. Forgive some of my sarcasm, but that and your words dismissing me were irksome. I know the difference between the horrors men have faced from feminism and the importance of sharing leadership; I've seen both, and the tendency of some males to hord leadership and condemn women who reach for a share is harmful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-12245336212830837922010-11-02T18:40:35.903-05:002010-11-02T18:40:35.903-05:00I don't believe I ever talked about lording le...I don't believe I ever talked about lording leadership in my postings, if I'm not mistaken?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-8662297508392259942010-11-02T17:14:34.736-05:002010-11-02T17:14:34.736-05:00And btw, I care greatly about men's problems. ...And btw, I care greatly about men's problems. Such as losing their kids, having their reputations damaged, being stolen from in court. NOT having to share leadership with women. If the latter's your "problem", you'd best stop whining.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-56141429411065086352010-11-02T17:10:11.104-05:002010-11-02T17:10:11.104-05:00Which is how, Anon? Keeping them quiet and out of ...Which is how, Anon? Keeping them quiet and out of the way? There's nothing wrong with wanting kids and no job; what's wrong with you is your silly agreement with dismissing women because they don't care enough about uplifting males. Lording leadership for men is not Biblical, sweetheart; sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-36880829543451571822009-02-15T09:02:00.000-06:002009-02-15T09:02:00.000-06:00Billy, I'm afraid you're quite wrong, and your att...Billy, I'm afraid you're quite wrong, and your attitude is what fuels a great deal of feminism: women are useless to troubled men, they don't get the leadership, they should just be quiet. I almost laughed at your wording, because you complained of feminism and then showed the very attitude which generates it! This is not about competing; in the Body of Christ, both genders are required to share in fellowship, not compete. The role of leadership is given to GOD; men and women are both required to preach His works. I suggest you uncurl your fist, quite powerless in the light of God, and accept this, because no strong woman is going to listen to you and your fussing will not change God's Plan.<BR/><BR/>JenniferAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-20786128971512588702009-02-15T02:36:00.000-06:002009-02-15T02:36:00.000-06:00It's no use discussing the problems men face with ...It's no use discussing the problems men face with most women. They always have to bring how bad they've had it for eons.<BR/><BR/>They don't want to hear about mens problems and aren't really concerned.<BR/><BR/>If all the men on the titanic placed the women in liferafts and jumped overboard the women would only be concerned with imediate dangers and blame the men for abandoning them.<BR/><BR/>Anything negative towards a womans desires for more privileges(Feminism) is seen as misogyny and they don't want to hear mens complaints. <BR/><BR/>I believe that if men are going get anywhere we will have to do it alone since most women only waste mans time with "What about us" questions and arguments? <BR/> <BR/> Anyone who is a feminist has accepted the lies the devil himself and will never be a good ally or friend.<BR/><BR/>Jenifer can the church which is the bride be equal heads with Christ? Absolutely not.. <BR/>Feminism has encouraged women to compete for the leadership role which was given to man. <BR/><BR/>Men and women were not made to compete with each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-82595312252305521042008-12-11T15:58:00.000-06:002008-12-11T15:58:00.000-06:00Sir, I am sorry that you believe headship only goe...Sir, I am sorry that you believe headship only goes to men; I could not be more convicted that this is false. However, other than this, I believe you are a purely awesome man! I have rarely seen such reason and fairness to both men and women. You speak of feminist faults without tolerating male ones and, most importantly, without hatred. Even though you are a complimentarian, I see none of the patriarchal bias that exists in so many other websites. Thank you truly sir, and kudos to you.Jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905272108326085380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-13632483967107194732008-10-05T05:56:00.000-05:002008-10-05T05:56:00.000-05:00Well, you seem like a smart man with a very ration...Well, you seem like a smart man with a very rational mind!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-60851906421385791172008-09-25T15:57:00.000-05:002008-09-25T15:57:00.000-05:00Yup, same thing happened to me last fall on Script...Yup, same thing happened to me last fall on Scripturally Single, on the Et Tu Josh Harris thread that was slamming him for suggesting on his blog that feminism might have been averted if it wasn't for men misusing their power in the first place. I went into how past financial dependency of wives afforded the husband a certain amount of indulgence. Even if according to "civil codes" he had certain rights and responsibilities, in reality a man could exercise his fancy or not, without the consequence of losing his marriage. So of course, this cultivated some imperviousness to the wife's experience, to the point where truth is his to define-- "2 plus 2 equals 5", if you will (something that would otherwise evoke contempt among those how are not dependent and subject to your power). Just like in a union shop where people are guaranteed a job regardless of what they do or don't do (even if there are good intentions behind much of those hapless actions/inactions), you will get the same "work to rule" mentality...and we all know where that goes.<BR/><BR/>After years of having this privilege, it has taken men a bit of adjusting to the idea of marriage being more of a partnership. But the ones that are doing it are the ones who are having the highest rates of success in marriage. The ones who don't get it only evoke contempt-- 2 plus 2 equals 5 just doesn't cut it anymore. The modern incentive to not sabotage your marriage requires that everyone in it act justly, even if that doesn't always happen.<BR/><BR/>And I think that's what Harris was trying to acknowledge in his blog post: that much of what is called feminism inevitably happened in response to men's unchecked behavior, but of course, any such observation only evokes contempt here, regardless of how it gets discussed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-90962950117516603762008-09-25T12:37:00.000-05:002008-09-25T12:37:00.000-05:00When I suggested that women have not always been w...When I suggested that women have not always been well off and that men used to have the upper hand, I was called a feminist for buying into "feminist teachings"...Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10601086764216054255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-46353949351387032992008-09-22T12:18:00.000-05:002008-09-22T12:18:00.000-05:00"Would you believe this exact thing happened to me..."Would you believe this exact thing happened to me today?"<BR/><BR/>What happened?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-89197165837324103552008-09-19T21:57:00.000-05:002008-09-19T21:57:00.000-05:00You cannot have a "balance" to what you identify a...<I>You cannot have a "balance" to what you identify as "man bashing" by calling everyone who dares to mention any hardship for women as "feminist".</I><BR/><BR/>Would you believe this exact thing happened to me today?Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10601086764216054255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-54026630180506409042008-09-18T21:00:00.000-05:002008-09-18T21:00:00.000-05:00Yeah, WOW!It's like the angels of grace and agreem...Yeah, WOW!<BR/><BR/>It's like the angels of grace and agreement have flown over this blog tonight!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-18307620614327723712008-09-18T14:19:00.000-05:002008-09-18T14:19:00.000-05:00Wow...I never actually thought I'd agree with Anon...Wow...<BR/><BR/>I never actually thought I'd agree with Anonymous on ANYTHING...<BR/><BR/><I>Actually, you don't come across as seeing men and women as equals in that department because you keep insisting it's your "experience" of church communities that there are less women (and less "decent" or "marriagable" women) than men in your "age group".</I><BR/>That is partiality to men =p<BR/><BR/><I>When in fact, there's numerically a shortage of church-going single men across all age groups -- which you keep denying, despite the stats from churchformen.com, a source touted by so many of the guys here!</I><BR/>Not certain I'm in TOTAL agreement here, but that the imbalances are in different areas... More men in rural, more women in cities kinda thing... But then, it could very well be that the TOTAL is also imbalanced - and it could very well be in favor of women (meaning more women then men overall). But I don't really know.<BR/><BR/><I>You cannot have a "balance" to what you identify as "man bashing" by calling everyone who dares to mention any hardship for women as "feminist".</I><BR/>So true...God help me if I ever dare to mention that women have a history of being the "inferior" class much the same way the men are now... And that for a genuine, God-fearing, honest woman, life ain't as dandy for her, either.Christinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10601086764216054255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-91756441708968898852008-09-17T21:40:00.000-05:002008-09-17T21:40:00.000-05:00I said "However, it would be like ignoring the ele...I said "However, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the living room if we were to just buy into your opinions about women without considering the influence of a characteristic that would so profoundly affect your experience with them."<BR/><BR/>And you said: "My opinions about women? Good grief...where have I suggested that women were more depraved than men?'<BR/><BR/>Actually, you don't come across as seeing men and women as equals in that department because you keep insisting it's your "experience" of church communities that there are less women (and less "decent" or "marriagable" women) than men in your "age group". When in fact, there's numerically a shortage of church-going single men across all age groups -- which you keep denying, despite the stats from churchformen.com, a source touted by so many of the guys here!<BR/><BR/>I have a hunch that it seems like there's a shortage of "decent women" to you, but it's actually a shortage of women who not only you'd be romantically interested in, but who'd also be interested in you. And again, I don't mean that to be insulting, but rather to fairly acknowledge the challenges that shorter men have in dating.<BR/><BR/>But to comment on the shortage of men in our churches seems to be the greatest offense to you -- as if it's suggesting that men are more "depraved", when I haven't said that at all! Things that feminists of yore regard as signs of male depravity -- things that would be more properly regarded as masculinity or normal aggression --there are things that I tend to give grace to, on this blog and life in general. <BR/><BR/>As you have mentioned before, there are sins, hardships and "issues" that do tend to befall one sex more than the other (I think the example you once gave was more men in prisons, but more women with eating disorders). But you cannot deal with gender issues in isolation -- that we learned from the excesses of feminism. You cannot have a "balance" to what you identify as "man bashing" by calling everyone who dares to mention any hardship for women as "feminist".<BR/><BR/>You are right that feminism has played a role in the protracted singleness of women -- but it's faithful <I>churchgoing women</I> that especially bear the brunt of this. Those who play by the rules in the no-sex-before-marriage department are outnumbered by those in world who don't, and then (surprise, surprise) are undersupplied with potential mates in their churches. <BR/><BR/>But then, of course, if those women *really* wanted to get married, they should be quite happy to marry someone a lot shorter than them, right? Ergo, if you're still single, then there couldn't possibly be any Christian women enduring a "man shortage", could there?? I think that's where you're coming from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-81435810174622691692008-09-10T05:58:00.000-05:002008-09-10T05:58:00.000-05:00However, it would be like ignoring the elephant in...<EM>However, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the living room if we were to just buy into your opinions about women without considering the influence of a characteristic that would so profoundly affect your experience with them.</EM><BR/><BR/>My opinions about women? Good grief...where have I suggested that women were more depraved than men? <BR/><BR/>In fact, Anakin and myself have been making the point that men and women are--and have been ever since the fall--equals in that department. <BR/><BR/>We are merely providing balance to the male-bashing that goes on among our top evangelical leaders.<BR/><BR/>I don't agree with Anakin or Triton or MLV on every point--if you'd bother to read us with any level of intellectual honesty, you'd find that we are hardly a mutual admiration society--but they do bring attention to issues that our most prominent leaders are sweeping under the rug.<BR/><BR/><EM>Anyways, I don't have the time either to address every point you have made. But that you are so quick to characterize anyone who supports any women's issue ever championed by feminists as being feminist themselves ("your movement") and quick to boil so much of society's (and men's) problems down to sex wars and the female contribution to them (without looking much at the male contribution), well, I think that says a thing or two about you.</EM><BR/><BR/>I referred to "your movement" because you are the one who has so steadfastly attempted to defend feminism. <BR/><BR/>If guns are my second religion, feminism is your first, second, and third.<BR/><BR/>Two can play that game, Anonymous.<BR/><BR/>Have I ever bashed you over your singleness? Hardly. <BR/><BR/>I've long-maintained that singles--of both sexes--often find themselves unmarried longer than they ever hoped or planned, and for reasons beyond their control.<BR/><BR/>We have writers in the evangelical world who blame the men for this. We have evangelical leaders--such as the President of a very prominent seminary--who endorse that viewpoint. <BR/><BR/>(For the record: I was a member of the church at which he is a "teaching pastor". I would be happy to illumine him about what goes on in his own church any time, anywhere.)<BR/><BR/>Even the prominent men's ministry gurus have bought into the male-bashing angle, as they have inflated headship theology to levels that are heterodoxical at best and actually breed misogyny.<BR/><BR/>As for feminism, you keep basking in the glories of it if you wish. <BR/><BR/>Keep in mind, however, that the feminist has possibly played a very critical role in your protracted singleness.<BR/><BR/>The unintended consequences of feminism are nothing short of staggering. If you wish to defend them, you go right on ahead. <BR/><BR/>After all, I respect the religious freedom of everyone, including those who worship feminism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-83841790477344272952008-09-09T22:22:00.000-05:002008-09-09T22:22:00.000-05:00"So far, you've called me a "gun toting conspiracy..."So far, you've called me a "gun toting conspiracy theorist" Nope. I said that's all you'd be left with.<BR/><BR/>"referred to gun rights as "my second religion" If the shoe fits... <BR/><BR/>"and also expressed that the extent of my experience is being a "short Christian". Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. You're assuming I meant that as a slight, but having come from short stock myself, I was genuinely acknowledging something that actually gets dismissed a lot: that short men do miss out on a lot of romantic opportunities -- and the shorter they are, the more they are likely to miss out on things like marriage and children. As you've also aptly said, many people are single for circumstances beyond their control. <BR/><BR/>I really didn't mean it as an insult, so I apologize if it came off that way. However, it would be like ignoring the elephant in the living room if we were to just buy into your opinions about women without considering the influence of a characteristic that would so profoundly affect your experience with them.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, I don't have the time either to address every point you have made. But that you are so quick to characterize anyone who supports any women's issue ever championed by feminists as being feminist themselves ("your movement") and quick to boil so much of society's (and men's) problems down to sex wars and the female contribution to them (without looking much at the male contribution), well, I think that says a thing or two about you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-48051253317200820622008-09-09T21:29:00.000-05:002008-09-09T21:29:00.000-05:00And as much as we direct our ire at the Puritans t...<I>And as much as we direct our ire at the Puritans today--some of that being valid--it was the Victorians who did far more damage both culturally and theologically.</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't quite agree with that. Socialism and its various offspring have always had their roots in New England, even during Victorian times. I would say that Victorian socialism/feminism/whatever was a product of a Puritan culture.<BR/><BR/>And New England hasn't changed its spots at all; they just ditched the Christian facade behind which they rationalized their nonsense.<BR/><BR/>Have you read <I>Albion's Seed</I> yet, Amir? If not, I recommend it. It's the best work I've seen on early American social history, and I've seen a few.Tritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881747667052152482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-64406697964272680832008-09-09T20:20:00.000-05:002008-09-09T20:20:00.000-05:00Well, Anonymous, you have shown a few things about...Well, Anonymous, you have shown a few things about yourself:<BR/><BR/>(1) You can't carry on a rational discussion without personally insulting anyone. So far, you've called me a "gun toting conspiracy theorist", referred to gun rights as "my second religion", and also expressed that the extent of my experience is being a "short Christian". That really wins a lot of respect. <BR/><BR/>(2) You have conveniently ignored the reality that feminism--historically--has been a matter of layers. <BR/><BR/>The Victorians and Unitarians undermined the Biblical presentation of Jesus and perverted sound theology. Oh, but they supported women's suffrage.<BR/><BR/>The feminists of the 1940s-early 60s were for "equal job/equal pay". What you fail to understand is that the "equal job/equal pay" movement was in fact a socialist one aimed toward getting everyone making the same salary. <BR/><BR/>That undermines free markets, innovation, and ultimately the standard of living, as we learned from the Communist experience. <BR/><BR/>And that leads me to the modern feminists, with Friedan, Smeal, Yard leading the charge. Aside from their genocidal agenda, they were avowed socialists who strove to push America toward socialism. <BR/><BR/>What is the point in all of this? Each layer of feminism built on the previous one. And as much as we direct our ire at the Puritans today--some of that being valid--it was the Victorians who did far more damage both culturally and theologically.<BR/><BR/>As for modern feminism, any benefit to which you can point--including the ability to get a mortgage without a man co-signing--is petty next to the body count.<BR/><BR/>I never said you had to apologize for the benefits you enjoy, but you really are making yourself look petty by not conceding that the large sector in your movement has some serious hell to pay for the carnage they have wrought.<BR/><BR/>And no...the benefits of feminism..in whole or part, are not worth the cost we have paid. The body count alone is bad enough, but we could include the war against masculinity, the undermining of sound Biblical theology, and the nanny state fascism we have endured.<BR/><BR/>(3) That I do not address every argument you make hardly constitutes a concession on my part; I simply don't have enough time to address every point, so I address the ones that I think are worth addressing. It's the Pareto principle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-17741220719976253952008-09-09T16:44:00.000-05:002008-09-09T16:44:00.000-05:00I'm not going to waste time debating gun freedoms ...I'm not going to waste time debating gun freedoms with you guys, since it's obviously your second religion. As I anticipate a luxurious long walk home tonight in the dark through my reasonably safe Canadian city, I'm only glad that I can live my life so fearlessly. I'm aware that most Americans in cities of comparable size would not advise any woman to do the same thing. btw- I notice that you completely ignored my MVA comparison, but speaking of the consequences of freedom...<BR/><BR/><BR/>"what I am suggesting is that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 had little to do with the advances of the 1970s, which were trending in the direction of "equal work/equal pay" due to free market dynamics...Can you name one--or any set of benefits--attributable to modern feminism that is worth the body count?"<BR/><BR/>What you're saying here is that modern feminism had no benefits (that positive changes like equal pay would have happened anyways, with or without feminism -- as if feminism itself is not a byproduct of "free market dynamics"!), yet when I "enjoy" any advancements for women that may have been championed by feminists (among others), well then, as a woman (even one who did have or support abortion), then I must apologize for that, considering the "body count" of abortion, because they also happened to fight for that one as well. <BR/><BR/>Well, excuse me, but I don't hear you apologizing for any of the benefits afforded to you as a consequence of "free market dynamics". <BR/><BR/>And so for that reason, I will not entertain a rhetorical question that essentially singles out all women, that whatever benefits they "enjoy" in that free market must be reconciled with the costs (whereas, you don't apply the same cost-benefit analysis to the same consequences that have come about through men exercising their freedoms). But that just doesn't happen on this blog, since ignoring all that is your idea of "balance", right? Whatever. I'm done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-22783983242538872562008-09-09T14:48:00.001-05:002008-09-09T14:48:00.001-05:00Uh no, I said (and I repeat): Rosie the Riveter an...<EM>Uh no, I said (and I repeat): Rosie the Riveter and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 far predated the "abortion as female empowerment" women's libbers of the sixties.<BR/><BR/>Just because the feminists of the 60's and 70's picked up the torch of the equal pay issue and then took up the abortion cause does not sully the fight for equal pay that took place in the 50's and early 60's. </EM><BR/><BR/>On the other hand, what I am suggesting is that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 had little to do with the advances of the 1970s, which were trending in the direction of "equal work/equal pay" due to free market dynamics. This means (a) the feminists of the 1960s were largely irrelevant, (b) the laws they helped put in place have actually done more harm than good to the economy--as they increase the cost of doing business for smaller firms--and (c) modern feminism is even more damnable, as they have even fewer gains to which to point. <BR/><BR/>Can you name one--or any set of benefits--attributable to modern feminism that is worth the body count?<BR/><BR/>As for gun ownership, again, gun-related crimes are down over 37% since 1981 <EM>in spite of looser gun laws</EM>. Moreover, those cities with the most Draconian of gun laws seem to have the highest murder rates. <BR/><BR/>Lott actually does a remarkable job demonstrating that looser gun laws are good for reducing crime rates. This is probably why--in spite of all the anti-gun efforts--citizens overwhelmingly support more gun rights. So do most cops I know.<BR/><BR/>And that is the thing: I can make the case that more feminism--especially the modern variety--leads to more societal disaster. I can point to abortion, birth control, their embracement of the population control agenda (marketed as greater access to birth control), and even their secondary participation in the sexual revolution, not to mention a theological disaster.<BR/><BR/>The early feminists were actually quite liberal theologically, as even the best of the bunch were Victorian, and this led to a very unBiblical presentation of Jesus. (Susan B. Anthony was herself quite Unitarian.)<BR/><BR/>When you look at women preachers, the overwhelming majority of them identify themselves as "strong feminists", and their presentation of Scripture--devoid of Orthodoxy-- reflects that.<BR/><BR/>On gun rights, the issue is one-dimensional, and the case is strong that gun rights has been good for society. One would have a very difficult case to make for feminism, even in part and certainly not in whole.<BR/><BR/>Early feminism has been a cancer in the church. Modern feminism has been Stalinism on steroids.<BR/><BR/>Even the feminists of the 1960s--for their focus on "equal job/equal pay"--have little gain to which to point. Trying to identify with them is laudable, but to do so excludes the parts of feminism that are not convenient to your case.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, a credible case against the NRA isn't even there. Gun rights have been the law of the land before the states even ratified the Constitution. <BR/><BR/>The NRA's involvement in promoting gun rights is actually a recent development, and only arose because of government infringement on gun rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4423802276620945726.post-32679529947240935802008-09-09T14:48:00.000-05:002008-09-09T14:48:00.000-05:00I don't know how you making the logical leap that ...<I>I don't know how you making the logical leap that gun-related problems are down somehow because of increased gun rights -- aging of the population is almost universally recognized as the reason for most decreases in crime.</I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense. Widespread gun ownership has been repeatedly shown to be a deterrent to violent crime. <A HREF="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html" REL="nofollow">John Lott</A> (yes, him again) wrote the book on the subject.<BR/><BR/>When guns are outlawed, other weapons will be used. In the U.K., they are talking about "knife control" to combat the violent crime rate that has, unsurprisingly, increased since they banned guns.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm skeptical that they are needed to protect property</I><BR/><BR/>Defensive use of firearms occurs all the time in this country. Usually just brandishing the weapon is enough to make the criminal change his mind.<BR/><BR/><I>or that they are necessary to protect us from tyrannical govts (that being an artifact of colonial times -- as if your saturday nite special would protect you from their daisy cutters!)</I><BR/><BR/>The Afghans managed to defeat the nuclear-armed Soviet Union with nothing more than small arms. The Viet Cong performed a similar feat against the United States. Neither of these are products of "colonial times".<BR/><BR/><I>And any sane observer can see that the US has created a "gun culture" through its media </I><BR/><BR/>The gun culture long predates the media. The Founding Fathers didn't write the second amendment after watching a shootout on CNN. And only an idiot would venture off into the wilderness to face wild animals and the Indian tribes without a firearm.<BR/><BR/><I>Don't kid yourself -- libertarians are overwhelmingly pro-choice, holding their noses as they support Ron Paul. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, many libertarians, especially those in the LP, are pro-choice. Many are also in favour of open borders. They are wrong on both counts. <BR/><BR/>This isn't a result of libertarian ideology <I>per se</I>, but rather the result of a Libertarian Party that just wants to smoke pot and rent hookers and doesn't really care much about more important issues (like fiat money). If they hold their noses to vote for Ron Paul it's because they are more libertine than libertarian.Tritonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881747667052152482noreply@blogger.com