Guns, knives, etc., sounds very good, but how does a common Joe find time to learn to use them and stay in training? C'mon, how realistic all this is.

(I got nothing against guns ideologically, btw; don't misunderstand me here).

Good parody, nice that you're lightening up a little on 9/11, although advocating wearing knives openly brings up unpleasant thoughts of those hijackers who were carrying blades on that day. Still, I got a chuckle over the idea of men, manly men, wearing claybegs and daggers on their belts in the supermarket and in the office. That would really show those Arabs we mean business.

Maybe you could get Sacha Baron Cohen to add a character named "Grim" to his repertoire.

B:

Insofar as you learned from a young age, as the Boy Scouts used to teach you, you wouldn't need to find time for it. As for you doing so, today, the average American has more leisure time than at any period in history. (One might also add that Americans are more in need of a hobby involving physical exercise than at any period in history, but such a statement might be gratuitous). There are many reasons why you might not choose to do it, but finding the time isn't really one of them.

O5:

That's right, it's a big joke. Davy Crockett? Joke. Jim Bowie? Joke. The men who won WWII, while still giving a thought to how to raise their sons? Just a big joke.

What would anyone in that tradition have to say about America, anyway? Nothing that would interest you, I imagine.

Hey, "Grim," the frontier is closed. The USA is a developed state now. No more Injuns to fight. Sorry you missed it, born too late.

If Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie were alive today, they'd have to make do with the life Americans have nowadays. Maybe they'd be swashbuckling software entrepreneurs or colorful politicians, or Army officers. Maybe they'd be bitter, alcoholic (Bowie was known as a heavy drinker, if I remember my Alamo history) frustrated, angry guys. Maybe they'd be in jail, unable to conform their conduct to the constraints of modern life. But their time is past.

But hey, I believe in freedom. You want to start a trend, go for it, strap on that scimitar, if it makes you feel like the manly man you are, you brute, you. Maybe it'll catch on. Just don't be surprised when your neighbors and people in the Target stay clear of you, or you get friendly inquiries from the local police about your intentions, or you're refused service in bars.

I've been wearing arms openly for years, and have never encountered any problems of any sort, legal or otherwise. (Although as Georgia law forbids the carrying of weapons into bars, and as I comply entirely with the law, I don't have anything to report on the subjec there; but in Virginia, where the wearing even of guns in bars is legal if it is done openly, I've had no trouble.)

As for the frontier being at an end and the absence of "Indians" -- if there is a lesson in 9/11, it is that the frontier has come home. The wild places are right here with us: we have Targets here and there, but we also have -- and may encounter on any day -- vicious and barbarian men. The Commanche were more honorable foes, though scarce kinder ones.

In any event, I disagree that 'their time is past.' "Their time," given that we are talking about men from Daniel Boone to the scoutmasters of 1943, is also mine, just as their ways are my ways. I'm not going anywhere, and I shall raise my sons to follow me.

Hmmm... Grim, to be honest, I have no leisure time whatsoever -- even for things that I have much more intrinsic motivation for than handling firearms or knives effectively.

To learn for serious (and maintain) any skill whatsoever takes huge amounts of time. Btw, as far as Americans' having tons of leisure time: I just keep reading the opposite, that they're all workaholics (_this_ I can believe).

As muggings go, it began like many others. A 56-year-old woman was leaving her building in her wheelchair, her only company the small dog perched on her lap.

Her attacker came from behind, the police said, and there was no one else around. But this attempted robbery had an ending unlike many others. As it turns out, the would-be victim, Margaret Johnson, has a permit to carry a .357 handgun — and she carries it often.

The mugging ended seconds after it began, the police said, when Ms. Johnson pulled out her gun and shot her attacker in his arm. Last night, the man accused of the attempted mugging, Deron Johnson, 45, was in stable condition at Harlem Hospital Center with a gunshot wound to his elbow, the police said. He was under protective custody and is facing a robbery charge, the police said.

The man accused of attacking her, Mr. Johnson (no relation), was described by the authorities as a “robbery recidivist,’’ with nine previous arrests. He spent several years in prison for criminal sale of a controlled substance, and he was released in February 2003, according to Department of Correction Records.

You will keep reading that, Mr. Broom, because it's what Americans like to tell themselves. :) Against which read this article from the Economist, for example.

If ultimately this is something you just don't want to do, that's fine. It's a free country, as our observing friend says, and I don't mean to suggest you're a bad person if you don't wish to go armed. I'm talking mostly to people who do want to do it -- of which there are many. More and more states permit the carrying of weapons, openly or concealed; but the focus has heretofore been on concealed carry.

That has advantages -- chiefly, that crime rates drop because criminals can't be sure whom to attack, and so attacking anyone becomes more risky. What I am arguing for is the next step, the carrying of at least certain arms openly (by people who might have carried concealed, either by hiding their arms or by hiding the fact that it was an arm they were carrying).

I've laid out the reasons for doing it, and I think they're valid ones. It improves the security of our immediate society, and gives our boys the space to learn to be the traditional American kind of man, whom observer and company feel ought to pass away.

As to which, I don't think we're going to -- and woe betide America if we ever do.

By the way, in case it's not clear from the parts of the article relating to chivalry and politeness -- the point here isn't to strap on 'scimitars' and swagger around, as observer seems to think. Making people uncomfortable would defeat the main point, which is just the opposite -- to resurrect the carrying of knives as a normal, accepted part of everyday life. To make it, again, something that a gentleman does.

For that reason, you should be polite and courteous at all times while doing so, and you should have some sense of your community's standards (as well as a very firm sense of their laws, which should be obeyed) while wearing arms. If you're living in a place where people are exceptionally nervous (like the suburbs of Maryland, where I lived one year in 2002), a large folding lockblade knife -- legal, clearly a weapon, but for some reason not as threatening to people as a sheath knife -- is a good choice. I carried one openly eveywhere I went (a Gerber Applegate-Fairbairn combat folder), and never had a problem.

In a better part of the country, like most of my own beloved Georgia, you can carry just about what you want.

It is the right to bear arms that defines a gentleman, but courtesy is likewise a necessary quality. We are trying to make arms-bearing acceptable, which means that we must make people comfortable with it.

No, it's not a matter of "just don't want to do", seriously. I can't see how adult working people in the US would have time for this; it's completely unrealistic.

Americans, who are already the hardest workers in the Western world, are taking fewer holidays than they have done for almost 30 years, a survey says.

(Filed: 21/08/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/21/wholidays21.xml

But we don't need any articles to prove the obvious. Every single working guy I know is living like a squirrel in the wheel. People have no freaken time, that's a fact of life, at least in the US. Like I said, I'm all for what martial arts (and many other things), but it's impossible. Wishful thinking.

"Impossible" isn't a particularly American word. :) I have worked the hours of a military contractor these last few years, which are serious hours indeed -- I took no vacations at all for three years, worked every weekend and holiday, and have taken time off lately only because I'm between contracts -- but there is time, if it is really important to you.

If it isn't, well, it's not. There's nothing wrong with having different priorities. We've been fortunate so far, and the war hasn't disrupted anyone's business (or busyness) for very long. May that not change.

I recall reading about an incident, some years before the Idiotfada, where three Palestinian gunmen entered a restaurant in Israel with the intention of hosing it with AK-47s. They were cut down by pistol fire before they could raise their weapons. One Palestinian who survived expressed outrage to a reporter - they had assumed that Israelis, like Europeans, were not allowed to have guns.

That same year, in San Ysidro, CA, a single gunman shot down 31 people, including children, and kept shooting until a police sniper killed him more than an hour after his rampage began.

Observer, whether you like it or not, more people will be wearing concealed weapons and they will use them.

Essentially, the Press, Dems, Professoriate etc. have hamstrung the government to pre-9/11 levels of PC. No profiling, no wiretapping, no financial surveillance, etc. No striking at bin Laden if it upsets Pakistanis or might kill civilians.

That's an abdication of government duty, and like all vacuums it will be filled. People might take on a personal risk if they think it miniscule but ask any parent how much they fancy losing their kid (even an adult) to a terrorist. Or any family member for that matter. People will not only fight to protect their families they will certainly kill, particularly if the Government is totally absent which it is.

Is this vigilantism? Of course. It's the inevitable result of government political cowardice (fear of the media, Dems, Academia, UN, Euros, etc). Note that if Al Qaeda is due POW Geneva Convention status, so too would any Vigilante Organization. You can't have it both ways.

Everyone working in a well-known building, flying, taking the train or bus, is vulnerable. They also know that if they die their families will thrust into poverty. You'll see a LOT of vigilante action. It's already started. BRit travelers in Spain refused to board until Muslims acting suspicious were thrown off.

Given the extraordinary stretch in the ability of Muslims to kill Americans, their steadfast insistence on it, and the relatively affordability of powerful, accurate, and concealable weapons whatever YOU think about it is irrelevant. If people think that shooting some suicide bomber before he can detonate them into oblivion and their families into poverty they'll damn well do it. Particularly since Government is MIA.

Hey, Jim, if carrying a Boy Scout knife makes you feel safer against the threat of terrorism, have at it. Of course "Government is MIA," after all, there are terrorist incidents every day, aren't there? So strap on that H&K SOF .40!

What scares me is your evident fantasy of shooting a suicide bomber before he sets off a bomb. More likely you'll shoot some brown person like Jean de Menezes while drunk or having another psychotic episode.

As far as what Grim is talking about, the post is about the importance of "wearing" arms, as he said, being openly armed. I've carried concealed and unconcealed firearms in the past, I don't do it in the USA because: (1) the rather low threat of crime, even in big cities, does not justify the hassle, (2) if you pay attention to your surroundings and act prudently, there will likely be better ways to avoid/deal with trouble than using weapons.

Thinking that carrying a knife will do much good against a mugger is crazy. Most muggings begin with a sudden assault from behind or from concealment. You won't have a chance to deploy a weapon; indeed, it might be stolen or used against you.

My advice to all is, keep your weapons, fixations and fantasies concealed, you'll creep people out otherwise.

There's one gun/knife kill fantasy creep in every unit: the professionals stay clear, IME.

If we're giving advice, mine would be not to argue by ascribing psychological conditions to your rhetorical opponents. First of all, psychology is an unstable foundation for any sort of argument; and that is at its best, with laboratory conditions. Psychology doesn't even convince psychologists. Every study simply invites another study that refutes the first.

Psychology as practiced at the distance of comments-on-a-blog-post is not only not a science, it's not even a methodology.

Nor is it strongly evidence-based. The United States of America has now 40 states in which the right to carry arms is normally accorded the citizens; those citizens who carry arms lawfully commit crimes at rates far, far lower than the general population. Florida, for example, has revoked only 0.014% of its firearms permits due to gun crimes by permit holders.

Thus, the evidence suggests that gentlemen and ladies who carry arms lawfully are more, not less, stable than the regular population. They may not all be "professionals," but they aren't meant to be. They are meant to be citizens, doing a citizen's duty to keep the lawful order and the common peace. Such duties underlie that order, which you mention in your praise for the relative safety of American cities. We thank you for noticing.

More likely you'll shoot some brown person like Jean de Menezes while drunk or having another psychotic episode.

While the death of Jean de Menezes was a tragedy, it was a mistake made by the 'professionals' you admire so much - the police.

Your example should encourage amateurs to carry weapons to defend themselves, since the professionals have a history of goofing up so badly.

Obviously, I've hit a nerve there with a few offhand references to mental illness.

At my age and experience, I am going to take the liberty of making judgments based on what people say.

I don't dispute your stats on people carrying firearms being more peaceful and law-abiding. That is in part because many people who do carry firearms are off-duty LE professionals.

However, very few of those who carry arms write weblog posts titled "On the Virtues of Killing Children," or otherwise engage in fevered fantasies of fighting Al-Qaeda suicide bombers in the local mall. Or argue that all boys should carry knives, as some sort of social obligation of being a "gentleman," and lay a violent ethic on a 12 year old boy who should be thinking about football, not knives. Or see enough threats in the everyday good old USA that you have to be armed to feel safe.

To me, that seems crazy.

Mary, sure the police made a mistake, which under the circumstances just looks like a surveillance screw-up more than anything else. A description was misbroadcast, a connection missed, and they shot an innocent man.

I didn't mean to imply that they were acting in bad faith, just that a mistake was made, and such mistakes are more likely to be made by "vigilantes," after all, didn't they make a mistake on the flight in which they insisted that the two young Muslim men not fly with them? Jim's nutty ranting about Muslims, the "Government being MIA," too much political correctness leads me to think that him and those like him should not be allowed to have scissors, let alone a firearm.

Jim,

You can conjecture all you want about "vigalantes" shooting the wrong person more often than police, but in fact you'd be wrong: it's actually the other way around. A moment's reflection shows why it makes sense--while the police are often required to intervent in situations where it might be unclear who's the assailant and who's the victim, when the law-abiding citizen is defending himself there's usually no doubt!

And as long as I had to make use of the term "vigilante" let me register my objection: self-defense is not vigilantism, and Jim should not have used it in a context when he was clearly talking about self-defense.

Everyone takes that liberty, observer, to a greater or lesser degree. I was willing to let it pass when aimed in my direction, but not when you start throwing it at everyone who disagrees with you. That is to say, I suppose it is possible that I might be in some sense crazy; I don't think so, and you're certainly in no position to judge in spite of your confidence, but I'll let it stand that it's possible.

What is less possible is that everyone who agrees with me is crazy. It's rude to suggest it of these good people, and it's dishonest argumentation.

As for your argument that offduty LEOs are behind the low crime rate I mention, it's entirely wrong. LEOs do not require a civilian gun permit to carry off-duty. Therefore, statistics on how many civilian gun permits have been revoked would not be influenced by off-duty LEOs.

What I am talking about is the millions of citizens nationwide who carry, legally; and who thereby not only cause no problems, but in fact improve society.

Finally, you mention the importance of football to 12 year old boys, as a means of arguing that I am somehow bent on teaching boys violence. It is at this point that I'm going to return your compliment, and suggest you've hit upon an excellent parody.

I'm not sure whether you mean American football, which was introduced to colleges in order to improve the character of young men by keeping them from becoming effete. It was designed to serve as a substitute for actual war, because of the beneficial effects of war on the individual character -- at least, the beneficial effects as perceived by 19th century gentlemen.

WWI seems to have undermined that understanding of war, for good reason. However, the gentlemen in question were of an old tradition in recognizing and trying to encourage those changes. Plato's Laches, one of the earliest of his dialogues, has Socrates debating with other Athenian citizens whether the virtues of war can be encouraged by practice-fighting in armor. It is the same discussion, in its way, that we are having today. If no one still thinks of war as beneficial in the mechanized age, we do still think of the character of the defender as a vital and necessary part of every good citizen.

Or perhaps you mean "football" in terms of soccer; but if you mean that, you're referring to a sport and culture that encourages and produces a tremendous amount of anarchic violence. If I can turn a boy's interest from that sort of football to knives and the discipline of the martial arts, society will receive a better man when the boy grows up.

Yet I can no more say those things than I am set upon by a new fit of laughter at your proposal. 'If I can turn a boy's interest to knives,' I wrote in answer to it, and indeed! What a task that will be. Perhaps if we consider it carefully, we will also find a way to turn his interest to girls.

I didn't mean to imply that they were acting in bad faith, just that a mistake was made, and such mistakes are more likely to be made by "vigilantes," after all

This mistake was made by the professionals, not citizens. Your example doesn't prove that these mistakes are more likely to be made by armed citizens.

Whenever an armed citizen defends him/herself, are they "vigilantes"? Do you think citizens should have the right to defend themselves? It doesn't sound like you do.

The right of self-defense isn't just a civil right, it a requirement for survival. Even the lowliest animal has the right to defend itself. People like you would give us fewer rights than the average anemone.

Jim's nutty ranting about Muslims, the "Government being MIA," too much political correctness leads me to think that him and those like him should not be allowed to have scissors, let alone a firearm.

According to our laws, Jim is allowed to have scissors and a firearm, and I'd rather let him have a gun than let the 'professionals' take away our natural and civil rights.

Most muggings begin with a sudden assault from behind or from concealment. You won't have a chance to deploy a weapon; indeed, it might be stolen or used against you.

This is the familiar liberal narrative on self-defense. You have no choice but to submit to violence and robbery, which means if you're a woman you get to lie still and be raped as a bonus, then killed so you can't identify your rapist.

Liberals offer the same dismal consolation that they do on terrorism: you're statistically unlikely to be raped and murdered, especially if you stay at home and refuse to live your life. Defending yourself will only make your attacker dislike you. Shouldn't we ask why there are people who are so angry that they want to hurt other people? Shouldn't we address the root causes, etc. etc. etc.?

I favor a different narrative, in which violent criminals must carefully weigh their "legitimate grievances" against capitalism against the possibility that Sally the librarian might just blow their balls off with a 9mm automatic.

A more moderate defensive array for a Sally would be a double-edged knife, which can be used to keep a superior opponent at bay with a very minimal amount of training.

Guns, knives, etc., sounds very good, but how does a common Joe find time to learn to use them and stay in training?

A simple way for an untrained person to use a knife against an attacker is to hold it in one hand with your arm straight. The blade should be pointing up, and the flat of the blade should be facing the attacker - exactly like Peter Cushing showing a crucifix to a vampire.

This assumes you were not taken by total surprise and overborne immediately, which is not nearly so likely as observer thinks if you stay alert in dangerous places.

The attacker will have to deal with the knife before he deals with you, and his instinct will be to grab it out of your hand. When he does this the blade should be flicked with a wrist motion. Don't swing or stab, and keep the knife between you. A sharp doubled-edged knife used in this manner can cause crippling injury to his hands and wrists before he realizes it.

A huge component of this is psychological. Muggers and rapists like soft targets and will often retreat from one that offers a confident response.

This isn't a perfect defense, so Liberals who fear getting bogged down in a quagmire of self-defense should should just hand over their money and drop their pants.

Does anyone have any actual statistics that demonstrate that concealed weapons reduce violence? (and please nothing from John Lott, he's been preety clearly disproven by now). The best research I have heard so far is that concealed weapons have no affect on the rate of violent crime. Though I'm still looking for a clear survey one way or the other.

I just don't buy the argument that people will not be robbed if concealed weapons are prevalent. Alot of people who are on the street have mental illnesses, drug habits, or other problems which put them in this situation in the first place. They are not usually well-balanced people who carefully consider their pro's and con's before finding a victim.

Alchemist,
John Lott's work has hardly been "disproven", although it has been criticized. The earliest criticisms involved selective discarding of data with no objective basis. More recent criticisms are based on statistical arguments that are not necessarily resolvable to a final conclusion.

However, its amusing that the best that can be done in refutation of his thesis is assert that there is no actual effect, up or down, on violent crime when states adopt shall-issue concealed carry laws. Prior to Lott's work, the assertion was badly made by most that concealed carry permits increased violence.

If carrying weapons does not increase crime rate, why should the government limit citizen's freedom?

I think I carried more knife when I was say, 12, than now - it was just a small pocket knife tho, nothing serious. And I played soccer.

Now I'm seriously considering buying a handgun (not carrying it; the permit is too hard to obtain in Italy).

The fact that most muggings begin with a sudden assault from behind or from concealment is not a "liberal" fact: it's just a fact I've learned from work-related reading of hundreds of police reports and living in the big city for 50+ years. I've seen many variations: e.g., a retired FBI agent with a few drinks in him was lured into an alley by a woman and "yoked" (choked from behind) and thrown down and robbed by her collaborators. His own gun was stolen. These basic facts about street robberies are why urban police departments discourage people carrying weapons: the likelihood of the weapon being stolen or lost and turned to criminal purposes is present.

I was a Boy Scout too: I had a Boy Scout knife. In my Boy Scout manuals and lore, the knife was a tool: it had those little attachments, like the Swiss Army knife. The main emphasis of knife use in the Boy Scout Manual, I remember, was whittling and wood carving.

I don't remember any Knife Fighting or Duelling merit badges.

What "Grim" advocated is not just the innocent use of pocket knives as a tool, but the explicit carrying and training in the use of knives as weapons by boys. Training boys in knife fighting. How is football in any way equivalent to training boys in knife fighting? Yeah, knocking around a field with a ball is just like encouraging the carrying and use of deadly force, OK, whatever.

(And why should only boys be encouraged to carry knives and learn how to stab assailants, when the rationale being presented for this in the comments is self-defense, and girls certainly face threats? This can only be because Grim wants to contest a perceived threat to "real" masculinity. Again, creepy.)

Look, knives are OK and guns have their place. In the end, they're just tools. In the case of the knife, a very simple tool.

I understand the collecting impulse, I understand the appreciation of fine materials and workmanship which many knife aficionados have.

I've known guys who collected weapons out of many motivations - historical, material, commercial.

There are other guys who obsess about the effects of weapons, whose veneration of weapons is creepily fetishistic. For examples, they like knives not as quality tools, as aesthetic objects or historical artifacts, but because when they have one in their hands they can imagine slitting some imagined enemy's throat.

The Greeks, also mentioned, wished to teach fighting -- yes, explicit fighting -- to the youth of Athens. The education of a young man in the Middle Ages normally included defensive fighting as well. Martial arts of one sort of another are almost universal in human cultures. They do not advocate murder or 'the thrill of killing,' as you suggest they do, but virtue and defense of the right.

The sport of fencing, for example, includes the concept of "right of way." This is meant to emulate a duel to the death, by requiring you to parry deadly thrusts before you can attack. It is literally a sport of fighting with blades, and one that (as historian and martial artist Dwight McLemore has noted) directly influenced the American arts. What came to be known as the Bowie knife was taught by European fencing masters, who came to New Orleans and elsewhere for the purpose.

The sport also has developed the highest codes for showing and respecting honor. These are likewise found in the various Japanese martial arts, and others of the sort.

Precisely because they involve fighting, simulated or actual, these types of training involve learning ethics. There is no better teacher.

As for football, you may not know it, but at the time of its introduction and rise to popularity as a means of training the youth in virtue, it was very much like war. The protective equipment was not as good as it is today, and the rules not so demanding. Wells Twombly, a historian who has written on the subject, found that 73 players, from high school to college to the early leagues, were killed nationwide in the game in 1905 alone.

I join with Theodore Roosevelt, who demanded the reform of the game to preserve its virtuous qualities, but to prevent harm to the players. Also like Roosevelt, however, I think it is a glorious game (particularly as played by the Georgia Bulldogs).

Roosevelt also wrote of football praisingly in his book The Strenuous Life: "In short, in life, as in a foot-ball game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard; don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard."

Don't foul, and don't shirk -- that is the right attitude. Just as I advocate courtesy and politeness in the bearing of arms, so too do I advocate not shirking your duty. Defense of the common peace and lawful order is part of a citizen's duty.

My understanding of what that entails is not very different from Roosevelt's; similar to Socrates'; in line with the gentlemen of the West since its inception; but quite different from yours. That suits me fine. I am comfortable in this company.

By the way -- on the subject of girls, one of the commenters at Grim's Hall also raised the subject. So that there is no misunderstanding, I'll reprint the exchange.

He wrote:

My one disagreement is that there was too much emphasis on "men" and "boys". Our sociey also needs to have women and girls comfortable with the wearing of arms that allow them to protect themselves from victimization.

Yeah, I can already hear the voices of those who say that "men are supposed to be the protectors". That might have been true, but consider what kind of public policy you are going to get if you discourage half of the voters from wearing arms for self-defense. You are likely to get... er, what we have now.

We need to produce that breed of American men AND WOMEN who are certain of themselves and capable of the defense of their own and the common liberty.

I replied:

I don't disagree with the ideal you advocate. It's just not one of my interests. I have no daughter; I have a perfectly well-armed wife, however, who needs little instruction from me except that I encourage her to get out to the range once in a while.

I do think that men and boys need to push back a little against the current culture. I'm not sure girls need the help; anyway, they don't seem to need my help. But I'm on their side.

observer:

There are other guys who obsess about the effects of weapons, whose veneration of weapons is creepily fetishistic.

Sadly, you are right - Dr. Deb Frisch, for example:

http://canisiratus.bl*gspot.com/2006/07/abnormal-psychology-201-introduction.html

Yeah, there are a lot of whackos out there.

Grim, Greek education of young men also included pederasty, should we start that up again, too?

Certainly not. Nor should we reintroduce slavery, of which Jim Bowie (as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) was a practitioner.

Nevertheless, I think it's right to say that there's more good than bad in the American tradition, the Western tradition, and the tradition that reaches back through Rome and Greece. I'll be glad to defend it in spite of its flaws, and to push for the strengthening of what strike me as its greatest virtues.

Perhaps the greatest of them all is the concept of the free man, whether the Athenian citizen or the yeoman farmer of Jefferson's writing. Jefferson wrote of the early American ideal:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent... [and] that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

That I'll defend, in spite of whatever sins were attached to Jefferson, or to the Romans before him, or the Greeks before them. I don't aspire to be a better man than Jefferson was. If he had flaws and so do I, so be it. His ideal was nevertheless right, and I will pursue it. You are free to do otherwise, as you prefer.

There are, and will be, few "free men" in the Jeffersonian sense.

Industrial society has pretty much crushed the "yeoman farmer" and small producer and artisan. Economies of scale on the global level have produced this situation. You can figure out the politics of this.

Your ideal world, driven by the values you (and I, to some extent) admire, is gone, and will not return, at least in our lifetime. How weaponry or politics could bring it back I'll leave it to you to ponder.

Grim, Greek education of young men also included pederasty, should we start that up again, too?

( sotto voce:) Bleeding Christs.

Observer5, this is ground control. You've jumped the shark -- I say again, you have jumped the shark. Recommend supplemental oxygen and abort to nearest alternate. Do you wish to declare an emergency? Over.

There are, and will be, few "free men" in the Jeffersonian sense.

Your point being that if most everyone is a slob, it's appropriate to join them?

Feel free. So to speak. "No one ever went broke underestimating...", etc.

Sigh.

Observer: take it as read that you totally pwned Grim, 'kay? Move along. No argument to win here.

Grim: A sheaf of strategies is always called for. I don't think your advocacy as-expressed is over the top. It might be idealistic in some ways. But different horses win on different courses.

Being prepared is trickier than a lot of people think.

BTW, Observer, Grim and all: I remember a part of the Swimming merit badge called "silent swim" -- including leaving the water and tapping the proctor on the shoulder without him ever hearing you. Yes, I passed. Eventually.

I expect the requirements have since changed. {shrug}

Looking at it now, its only practical use is to sneak up on someone and take them out unawares.

There are other attention-focusing and competency aspects.

But that one part, of that one merit badge, is clearly not in the same camp as whittling. Sorry, Observer5.

Oh, no doubt you'll tell me we live in a totally dsifferent world now.

Riiiiight. :)

In terms of yeoman farmers, there are indeed few of them left. Though a separate topic, it's something I've written about from time to time. Perhaps the best version of the argument is here .

The short form is that the important part of the Jeffersonian "yeoman farmer" ideal is that the YF owns his own means of production. This is the perfect opposite of the Marxist ideal, in which society owns it; and also opposed to the industrial model, in which you work for someone else who owns it.

For that reason, I think it's important to pursue policies that strenghten and encourage small-business ownership. This would include small farms, but also businesses of any type.

The small businessman is often not quite as free as the yeoman farmer. He relies on customers, rather than crops, for survival. Therefore, he is somewhat reliant on the goodwill of others, whereas the yeoman farmer was mostly reliant only on his own labor.

Still, I don't think that's a flaw. We benefit as a culture from having common interests developed in the marketplace. The small business does give most of the freedom that Jefferson sought. I think it's a workable model for modern Jeffersonian freedom that can involve a large part of the American people.

Everyone wants to be a yeoman farmer in the mold of Jefferson, i.e. a virtual noble. Nobody wants to be a yeoman farmer in the mold of say Abraham Lincoln's father, grinding out a life of near poverty with no connection to greater things than putting food on one's table. I've also noticed that admirers of polygamy seem to assume that they will be one of the lucky men with multiple wives, all having a full set of teeth, but that's another matter.

While I understand your point, Mr. Shaw, it should be noted that the most reliable way to become rich in America is small business ownership. I'm not asking anyone to make sacrifices of their family's wealth for a political ideal. I'm looking for a way to achieve Jefferson's political ideal, as much as practical, while improving the condition of both society and individual families.

Grim

I see you are at it again. I've always fancied the idea of carry knives for self defense and personally do not have a problem w/ it. Like free speech if its there you have a known quality to deal w/. I doubt however that the Boy Scout handbook taught self defense w/ a knife.

My suggestion would be to bring back a one year military draft for "EVERYONE" over the age of 18 to be implemented upon graduation from high school along the lines of marine boot camp. I do not have a problem w/CO's doing something else as long as first aid, basic outdoor survival and the films on what bullets and shrapnel do to a human body are included. This means no college, military, Olympics anything till after that year.

My thought is to provide a common experience and set of knowledge about survival. I think everyone would be alot more judicious in their thoughts and actions.

And yes this comes from someone whom was against the draft and Viet Nam fiasco. So if you disagree or have a better solution or want to elaborate more go ahead and post.

I don't really object to the idea, although I wouldn't go so far as to push for it either. There are some advantages, to be sure.

I've got a friend in Finland who is a lawyer. At some point, he had to do just what you propose -- put in a year in the Finnish military. It was just long enough to train him for what amounts to militia service. He learned to operate and clean a Kalashnikov rifle, RPGs, grenades, how to march, and was trained in a basic way for a military job. Then, about the time he was trained, he was done.

He hated ever minute of it, being of a pacifist character (which I hold against no one -- he is a fine man, and one I'm glad to know, even though we disagree about that basic part of ethics). Still, should a resurgent (or desperate) Russia someday push into Finland, and the citizens need be called up to defend their freedom -- well, he'd know how. He wouldn't like it, being again a pacifist, but he'd know how to do his job.

I think there's surely a value to that. It didn't change his mind or his character, but it made him a more useful citizen -- in the event, hoped against by everyone, that it should be needed.