You generally make a lot of sense on here and make some excellent contributions, but if you're inferring that countries that don't consider arming its citizens to be a good policy are not polite, then this is ludicrous. As you said, you're not going to change your minds about the gun issue, but have you travelled much outside of the US and south America? Can you name any countries where guns are illegal and you've found people to be rude? Are people less polite in Canada for example? Or am I missing your point?
Man, does no one understand hyperbole any more? Besides that, why does every proposition have to be an "either/or"? In fact, people who follow US politics might even realize that that "either/or" is a very bad proposition, as we watch the US go down the crapper economically, and as far as I'm concerned, socially.
Of course I don't think that a society must be armed to be polite. In fact, the statement, while a bit extreme for some perhaps, was not a non-inclusive statement. It didn't say that was the only way a society could be polite (BTW - "polite" doesn't have to just mean how two or more people intercourse socially. It could also mean how people, at their core, treat each other). My example in this case was a discussion about Argentina and the fact that the government has more or less abandoned the people in terms of security and protection. Of course, there has not has been a defacto abandonment, but surely the government is not living up to their side of the bargain, implicitly or explicitly stated: "Be disarmed as a citizenry and we will protect you - from each other and from exterior forces."
In this particular case (Heinlein's quote) it's a character in a book (probably repeated by more than one character in more than one book, but certainly the concept was often there) that is making a point that if everyone was armed, people would tend to be polite to each other in the absence of (say) the government not forcing everyone to be polite to each other. In the particular case, the society was a society where dueling took place at the slightest provocation and the government left it up to its citizenry to enforce said politeness. In that case, people would indeed be more polite to each other if they thought that rudeness would end in injury, maiming or death.
Again, I'm NOT suggesting that we should all arm ourselves and go shooting people who are impolite to us. Hyperbole, folks.
Taken as another point, which I agree with - the government would probably tend to be more polite to its citizenry if they were armed and presented a clear danger to the government's continued existence. In a democracy where people are fairly equally educated, have fairly equal possibilities to get ahead, where the officials are not very corrupt (no such thing as no corruption - government is a reflection of human mores and desires), etc, such a thing is not necessarily needed - as long as things stay the course!
But what about a government that doesn't listen to its people? Such a government would not want its citizenry to hold weapons because they can be used to stop oppression the very oppression upon which the government is intent. In my belief, Argentina currently (I mean at this moment) could possibly fall under such a case, more so than the US.
Why?
Because Argentina has a fairly unarmed citizenry, the government doesn't have much in the way of armed forces and at this current time the government is being quite impolite to its citizenry (considering that now a clear majority are NOT in favor of policies that Cristina is implementing "for their own good," many of which the people don't believe are good for them). It would be relatively simple for Cristina to take a simple page from history (Hitler - I'm not talking about the Holocaust, but rather how he gained and kept power - the Brownshirts) at this point. She could easily get more of her followers gathered together than there are police, as an example, and start beating people with freaking truncheons! What would they do? How would they defend themselves? The army is probably pretty much out of it and the police would probably sit back and either take whoever's side was paying them or just stay out of the way until things settled down. They certainly don't seem to be able to do much now, given their numbers, training and make-up, currently to even stop unorganized thieves in any big sense.
The US at this moment is a different story. The country is pretty much split down the middle. One problem is that half the country likes the policies of those in power, the other half doesn't. It kind of falls under a tyranny of the majority (which swings back and forth with the one of two parties who are in power) because too many people on both sides see government as something that should make changes and determine the direction a society should go and have used that tool on both sides to try to make it so. They just differ in what those goals are. Both sides of the country control things, and it's not a tyranny of the government, exactly, unlike what I consider Argentina at this moment in time.
However, personally, I would like to see the US break up. I think it has become a monstrosity not only to its own citizenry (whichever half is not currently in power), but to many of those around the world. It is a behemoth that is thrashing about and causing damage that it needn't cause for the people of the US to be successful and happy.
I'd love to see states consider secession. I'd hope Texas would be one of the first. But due to Mr Lincoln some 150 years ago, it might be that something like that would have to be done under force of arms, unfortunately. In that case, an armed citizenry would come in quite handy. And it doesn't have to be simply individuals - the State of Texas has maintained a militia, including an air force and army. Given how the US is stretched out around the world, and that economically it's situated on a precipice that has a long, long drop, I think it could be managed relatively easily.
Back to Heinlein for a moment.
He had what I consider to be some other good thoughts, although again, a bit extreme perhaps for some, and maybe not really workable in a truly free society - but what is a "free society?"
Heinlein was a naval officer. Extremely smart. He was also an engineer. He was also, from an early age, a science fiction writer, one of the first "Grand Masters" of science fiction (in deed - he was actually the first to be so named by the Science Fiction Writers of America). He was also a swinger - although that's not a really good description because he really believed more in free love and sharing it than in just swapping spouses. he also did not seem to be very hung up on homosexuality, which for a (at least mostly, if not completely, as far as I know) heterosexual man born in 1907, is really something.
Heinlein wrote a story about an atomic bomb. Not fusion or fission, but something that would spread radioactivity on its target, namely Berlin, written 8 months before the US entered the war (WWII) and years before the US actually developed a nuclear device to drop on Japan. I've read that he was actually detained briefly by the US government during the war to be questioned about how he got such information - Heinlein was brilliant and foresaw such things.
Although he was a military officer, he also saw things differently than most people. Hell, this is the guy who wrote Stranger in a Strange Land and Time Enough for Love (two very interesting books that if you have never read or heard of them, you should consider it, particular Stranger).
But one thing he thought was that people should not have the right to vote unless they served in the military or some other government function related to serving the nation. One reason he gave for the military aspect was that he thought it was too easy for people in government, many (perhaps the majority) of whom had never had to be placed in harm's way - it was too easy for them to order "our boys" out to their deaths in the name of the politicians' desires (whether they be "legitimate" or for some greedy desire).. I think the same could be said for his community service desires - it was too easy for people who didn't understand the functioning of their own government and the results that came out of it, and the money that was spent, etc,, for the common person who simply don't understand that you can't just vote yourself money.
He was a BIG believer in personal responsibility (as am I).
Now, talking about the Swiss militia and an armed citizenry! As Frenchy stated (an endearing nickname, not meant to belittle
) the Swiss are quite armed. They are also trained in the use of their weapons. Their society seems to function quite nicely.
Of course, Swiss society is fairly homogenous, well-educated and well-trained. I don't think the Swiss necessarily want their ex-soliders armed to oppose the government - but neither do they have that fear, it would seem. And yet the Swiss do not kill each other indiscriminately either.
Yes, I do think an armed citizenry is better than an unarmed one, for many reasons. But I also don't think you should just allow anyone to have guns either. There has to be a balance. In Switzerland, a small, similar-thinking people, the government trusts its people and the people return that trust. In the US, of course I don't want to give weapons to people who are drug users, criminals and psychopaths. I don't know exactly what the line is, and how its drawn, and how it's done so that limiting who has a weapon can be assured to not be a form of tyranny as well.
It always come down to this: Criminals will get what they want legally or illegally. They will use whatever weapons are at hand, either illegally or legally attained. The only people, then, that can own firearms (CCW, carried for protection, I'm not talking about hunting rifles and other more restricted forms of weapons that can easily be carried) to protect themselves at all times are criminals.
In a situation where the government has lost its ability to protect its citizenry from true criminals, those who would protect themselves with weapons similar to those in possession by the criminals, as well, are criminals. And to my way of thinking, that's just criminal.
