" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
We will have to agree to disagree about your interpretation of his views. You claim that he kept a gun in his home. Source please.
I can't remember the source, but I do seem to remember reading this somewhere, years ago. I guess we could ask Yoko, but if she decided to sing about it, well, we still wouldn't know.
John Lennon had a huge influence on me. I've read books and articles and viewed documentaries about him, and I've never run across anything (that I can remember) indicating that he had a gun in his home. (Paul McCartney, maybe, but not John Lennon or George Harrison). They were pacifists, and stood against violence, and advocated for social change, but with peaceful means, not violent ones. The idea of John Lennon carrying a gun is absurd, maybe the pinnacle of hypocrisy, and the idea of him using a gun is equally hypocritically absurd. It would be like saying that Ghandi carried a gun.
I figured it out JDH and why we will never agree, your bigest influence is the band that my father blamed for as he calls it the ruination of this country. This from a guy who grew up in a neiborhood where there was no drugs no crime and he didnt have a key to the front door.
My biggest influence? You don't know me, you've never met me, you have no idea who my biggest influence is or was. Lennon was a huge influence, but I'm not shallow enough to have just had one influence. Saul Bellows had a huge influence, and Leon Uris had a huge influence, and Jesus Christ had a huge influence, and GB Shaw, and Tom Paine, and Mark Twain, and H D Thoreau, and Jean Paul Sartre, and C S Lewis, and Ken Kesey, and Tom Wolfe, and Beethoven, and Motzart, and Johnny Cash, and Hunter Thompson, and George Carlin and a hundred other guys all had a huge influence on me. But if you can't see eye to eye with me bacause I liked John Lennon, that's your problem.
At any rate, according to you the Beatles destroyed it all. Hey, I know where you can get some really nice ocean front property in Calgary, Canada, too.
What is it with the right and guns? I mean really, you all get all heated over them. To hell with the air, water, environment, your own body ... but any gun control and it's ON! I think banning anything (mostly) is a bad idea. Banning things only incite people to get that what is banned. In so called free societies I think banning items for the most part does not make people safer and in fact starts a uncontrolled market.
In my youth, we called it "Power to the People".
The too oft repeated struggle for freedom is always decided by blood. Always. There is no other way to achieve liberty. Why did Paul Revere ride at midnight? To alert the colonists that the Redcoats were coming to seize their weapons. Why did the French storm the Bastille? It was an armory. Why did the Senate stab Caesar? He was a hero once. Why did Bolivar, Ataturk, Mao, Washington, Ho, Huey, et al march and bleed and march and bleed on the knife edge of destruction year after year? And why did men follow them to death?
What chance would they have had unarmed?
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
Sorry, but while certainly the American Revolution and the Civil War represent examples of how freedom was won through bloodshed, it's also important to remember that these were wars were primarily conducted by armies under the management of centralized civilian authorities, not gangs of citizens who fought pell mell. And, to counter your assertion, there are plenty of occasions where freedom and governmental change have been won without violence or without huge mobs of heavily armed citizens forcing this changes. A few examples.
1. The 'Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia. A completely peaceful transition from communism to democracy with no violence from either citizens or the miliary.
2. The fall of the Iron Curtain.. While there were protest, there were no armed citizens marching in the streets who 'forced' the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and other Soviet Bloc nations. This transition happened peacefully, and although none of these countries are "free,' they're far more democratic than they were in the time of Communisim.
3. The fall of Mubarek. Most of the people protesting in Cairo were not armed, and although many died, it wasn't a highly armed populace that forced Mubarek and his stooges out of government; it was the military deciding to act the way the wind was blowing.
4. The civil rights struggle in the U.S. Blacks didn't end Jim Crow and gain civil rights denied them in the south by arming themselves to the death and killing whitey; instead, they conducted non-violent protests that helped them to gain the sympathy of the majority of Americans, who pressured their Congressional representatives to end this suppression of their liberties.
5. The end of apartheid in South Africa. There weren't hundreds of thousands of heavily armed South African blacks aiming their barrels at the white power structure demanding their surrender.Instead, apartheid was ended through a nonviolent political settlement.
6. The creation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There were no armed mobs standing surrounding the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia demanding a new Constitution and definition and guarantee of rights; these were all negotiated and agreed upon by men who defined liberty as being something other than that being won by a gun.
Yes, civil wars and revolutions do offer one approach for gaining freedom. But certainly not the only way, as history has demonstrated over and over again.
The real sad thing is ... a lot of oppressors only give up when they get shot. Though if there is one thing I have learned from history, humans really do suck.
What is it with the right and guns? I mean really, you all get all heated over them. To hell with the air, water, environment, your own body ... but any gun control and it's ON! I think banning anything (mostly) is a bad idea. Banning things only incite people to get that what is banned. In so called free societies I think banning items for the most part does not make people safer and in fact starts a uncontrolled market.
In my youth, we called it "Power to the People".
The too oft repeated struggle for freedom is always decided by blood. Always. There is no other way to achieve liberty. Why did Paul Revere ride at midnight? To alert the colonists that the Redcoats were coming to seize their weapons. Why did the French storm the Bastille? It was an armory. Why did the Senate stab Caesar? He was a hero once. Why did Bolivar, Ataturk, Mao, Washington, Ho, Huey, et al march and bleed and march and bleed on the knife edge of destruction year after year? And why did men follow them to death?
What chance would they have had unarmed?
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
Sorry, but while certainly the American Revolution and the Civil War represent examples of how freedom was won through bloodshed, it's also important to remember that these were wars were primarily conducted by armies under the management of centralized civilian authorities, not gangs of citizens who fought pell mell. And, to counter your assertion, there are plenty of occasions where freedom and governmental change have been won without violence or without huge mobs of heavily armed citizens forcing this changes. A few examples.
1. The 'Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia. A completely peaceful transition from communism to democracy with no violence from either citizens or the miliary.
2. The fall of the Iron Curtain.. While there were protest, there were no armed citizens marching in the streets who 'forced' the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and other Soviet Bloc nations. This transition happened peacefully, and although none of these countries are "free,' they're far more democratic than they were in the time of Communisim.
3. The fall of Mubarek. Most of the people protesting in Cairo were not armed, and although many died, it wasn't a highly armed populace that forced Mubarek and his stooges out of government; it was the military deciding to act the way the wind was blowing.
4. The civil rights struggle in the U.S. Blacks didn't end Jim Crow and gain civil rights denied them in the south by arming themselves to the death and killing whitey; instead, they conducted non-violent protests that helped them to gain the sympathy of the majority of Americans, who pressured their Congressional representatives to end this suppression of their liberties.
5. The end of apartheid in South Africa. There weren't hundreds of thousands of heavily armed South African blacks aiming their barrels at the white power structure demanding their surrender.Instead, apartheid was ended through a nonviolent political settlement.
6. The creation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There were no armed mobs standing surrounding the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia demanding a new Constitution and definition and guarantee of rights; these were all negotiated and agreed upon by men who defined liberty as being something other than that being won by a gun.
Yes, civil wars and revolutions do offer one approach for gaining freedom. But certainly not the only way, as history has demonstrated over and over again.
The real sad thing is ... a lot of oppressors only give up when they get shot. Though if there is one thing I have learned from history, humans really do suck.
Only those who have given up on our form of government, or who no longer believe in our form of government, or in the rule of law in civil society would believe that "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
We will have to agree to disagree about your interpretation of his views. You claim that he kept a gun in his home. Source please.
I can't remember the source, but I do seem to remember reading this somewhere, years ago. I guess we could ask Yoko, but if she decided to sing about it, well, we still wouldn't know.
John Lennon had a huge influence on me. I've read books and articles and viewed documentaries about him, and I've never run across anything (that I can remember) indicating that he had a gun in his home. (Paul McCartney, maybe, but not John Lennon or George Harrison). They were pacifists, and stood against violence, and advocated for social change, but with peaceful means, not violent ones. The idea of John Lennon carrying a gun is absurd, maybe the pinnacle of hypocrisy, and the idea of him using a gun is equally hypocritically absurd. It would be like saying that Ghandi carried a gun.
I figured it out JDH and why we will never agree, your bigest influence is the band that my father blamed for as he calls it the ruination of this country. This from a guy who grew up in a neiborhood where there was no drugs no crime and he didnt have a key to the front door.
My biggest influence? You don't know me, you've never met me, you have no idea who my biggest influence is or was. Lennon was a huge influence, but I'm not shallow enough to have just had one influence. Saul Bellows had a huge influence, and Leon Uris had a huge influence, and Jesus Christ had a huge influence, and GB Shaw, and Tom Paine, and Mark Twain, and H D Thoreau, and Jean Paul Sartre, and C S Lewis, and Ken Kesey, and Tom Wolfe, and Beethoven, and Motzart, and Johnny Cash, and Hunter Thompson, and George Carlin and a hundred other guys all had a huge influence on me. But if you can't see eye to eye with me bacause I liked John Lennon, that's your problem.
At any rate, according to you the Beatles destroyed it all. Hey, I know where you can get some really nice ocean front property in Calgary, Canada, too.
One I said my father always said that. I was young when he died. Two you said John Lennon had a huge influence on you. You get very angry easy I was just messing around I don't get heated talking about this stuff but apparently you do. I have a really bad temper but can debate on topics I know about. I thought we were just debating about topics. My dad was a teenager in the 50 s and always said that but it was a joke. I was just kidding sorry about that. I'm now glad I never met you though. I don't have a problem nor do I care.
" So if you go carrying pictures of Chaiman Mao, you're not gonna make it with anyone anyhow." John Lennon. John Lennon's views were misinterpreted by the radical culture back then. He was a pacifist, but he did keep a weapon at his home. Its sad that he didn't carry it that day.
We will have to agree to disagree about your interpretation of his views. You claim that he kept a gun in his home. Source please.
I can't remember the source, but I do seem to remember reading this somewhere, years ago. I guess we could ask Yoko, but if she decided to sing about it, well, we still wouldn't know.
John Lennon had a huge influence on me. I've read books and articles and viewed documentaries about him, and I've never run across anything (that I can remember) indicating that he had a gun in his home. (Paul McCartney, maybe, but not John Lennon or George Harrison). They were pacifists, and stood against violence, and advocated for social change, but with peaceful means, not violent ones. The idea of John Lennon carrying a gun is absurd, maybe the pinnacle of hypocrisy, and the idea of him using a gun is equally hypocritically absurd. It would be like saying that Ghandi carried a gun.
I figured it out JDH and why we will never agree, your bigest influence is the band that my father blamed for as he calls it the ruination of this country. This from a guy who grew up in a neiborhood where there was no drugs no crime and he didnt have a key to the front door.
My biggest influence? You don't know me, you've never met me, you have no idea who my biggest influence is or was. Lennon was a huge influence, but I'm not shallow enough to have just had one influence. Saul Bellows had a huge influence, and Leon Uris had a huge influence, and Jesus Christ had a huge influence, and GB Shaw, and Tom Paine, and Mark Twain, and H D Thoreau, and Jean Paul Sartre, and C S Lewis, and Ken Kesey, and Tom Wolfe, and Beethoven, and Motzart, and Johnny Cash, and Hunter Thompson, and George Carlin and a hundred other guys all had a huge influence on me. But if you can't see eye to eye with me bacause I liked John Lennon, that's your problem.
At any rate, according to you the Beatles destroyed it all. Hey, I know where you can get some really nice ocean front property in Calgary, Canada, too.
One I said my father always said that. I was young when he died. Two you said John Lennon had a huge influence on you. You get very angry easy I was just messing around I don't get heated talking about this stuff but apparently you do. I have a really bad temper but can debate on topics I know about. I thought we were just debating about topics. My dad was a teenager in the 50 s and always said that but it was a joke. I was just kidding sorry about that. I'm now glad I never met you though. I don't have a problem nor do I care.
There was no anger in my post, only a statement of fact. I guess you are reading it as you would have said it, and since you don't know me, you can only see me as you want to. That's your problem, not mine.
It seems many of us have come to the same conclusion. A wise person once told me that if everyone in the house moves out but you, the problem is obvious.
Comments
At any rate, according to you the Beatles destroyed it all. Hey, I know where you can get some really nice ocean front property in Calgary, Canada, too.