Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Did Buddha say we have the right to bare arm....ie AK47
Just a question that needs an answer?
0
Comments
You raise an important point, HH. I think that the whole concept of a person having rights is either entirely alien to Buddhist thought or, more probably, outwith its scope. The whole matrix of interdependent arising suggests that human beings are endowed with ignorance and grasping even before any rights, and that no right can be called 'inalienable' or be guaranteed in perpetuity. Any such right is itself a product or outcome of a specific set of cultural, economic and political causes which, in the nature of historical and genetic pressure, are local and of relatively short duration, rarely exceeding a century or two.
In the case of bearing arms, we have seen that there is disagreement here. Indeed, it is a subject which is capable of descending into argument. And that is the point at which the teachings of the Dharma apply: to the way in which we treat ourselves and each other when we reach difference in opinion. Are we able to perceive difference as difference, and not as confrontation or of lesser worth? Can we test our own view? Subject it to scepticism? Can we moderate our speech? Can we maintain our practice? Can we see each difference as an opportunity to learn?
Rights only arise because the Great Tao is lost, according to the Tao Te Ching. Perhaps that is why the Buddha didn't waste time on them. After all, he only had a few decades in which to try and get the Dharma through our thick heads!
P.S. There is a typo in your title to the thread, H., which tickles me because I have read about Buddhist monks having to bare their right shoulder. Palzang?
.........Can we test our own view? Subject it to scepticism? Can we moderate our speech? Can we maintain our practice? Can we see each difference as an opportunity to learn?
In this specific case of any citizen wishing to engage in some macho gun waving exhibition I find it a complete waste of time and energy to question my motive, to moderate my speech, compromise or a take unlikey a opportunity to learn.
Just imagine making that request to that Burt Reynolds character two thirds through the movie "Duelling Banjo's".
Ok he might come back with a response such as" squeal piggy squeal" but in truth my no one wants that as the answer. What Mr Reynolds and the audience desire is justice.
My motive is pure....I hate guns and the only thing I hate more than guns are the people who wish to carry then. They are monsters.They have a red neck political agenda which we have already witnessed through the puppet masters in the White House.
It is my duty as a human being to stop them and it's yours too.
I'm sure he is a good man. And like yourself knows his s**t.
The aforementioned one
That's actually what I thought the thread was about when I opened it! Surprise, surprise!
Palzang
It's not my duty to hate people that carry guns nor is it my job to stop them from carrying guns.
I don't like guns. I've never owned a gun. My step-dad used to carry a gun with him on his long road-trips - and used to hunt every great once in awhile too.
He wasn't a monster. He wasn't a redneck. He was actually a very kind, caring and gentle man.
So... I don't know what to tell you, but I can't agree with all of your statements.
-bf
It all comes back to The Eightfold Path....
If my partner was being mauled by a tiger, and I had a rifle in my hand, I would hardly resort to flapping my arms about - I wouldn't hesitate....
But given that I can count the times I've smacked both my kids, on the fingers of one hand, you can imagine what my opinion is towards any type of violence towards another human being.
The Dalai Lama has voiced compassion and understanding for those Buddhists caught in 'impossible' situations (such as maybe Burma or Tibet) and has said, that in the same position, he is not sure he wouldn't have done the same, but generally speaking, he has always adhered to a policy of non-violence.
If on this forum, and given the 'normal' kind of lives we all lead, you are Buddhist, and you have devoted yourself to the discipline of following the Eightfold Path and the five precepts, I fail to see why the question would be even one to have to ponder...
If, you have Buddhist afinities, and you agree by and large, that Buddhism is a way to explore, then the issue becomes more complex.
Notwithstanding the Right to bear Arms, if you have to debate this point, then I would guess that the biggest struggle you would have is with yourself....
Or am I being too simplistic?
I agree with buddhafoot.
End of threat.
End of fear.
Equals safer communities.
I have friends that live in Orange County they were married and both very reasonable people. However, sadly they separated and they went through the first stages of divorce ie they started dating other people they both knew, within weeks they both wanted to blow each other away and would threaten to shoot each other.They both had fire arms. They scared the c **p out of me because I believed them both. In fact I believe the police were called on one occassion.Crazy but true and if we are honest sadly not that uncommon.
In Europe gun crime although on the rise is still uncommon simply because guns are not readly avialable to Joe public over counter. US law on gun ownership is comparible with South America or East Africa. America is uncivilised and lives in a paranoid fear of it own shadow, I beg you all to get of the fence and STOP THE VIOLENCE.
I disagree with you, not because I am unpatriotic but because if Buddha or Jesus were with us today they would shame us in to right action.I am not prepared to sit it out while the America presses the self distruct button.
On a happier note my I wish you all (except gun lovers) a very happy new year.
You can't talk a tiger out of attacking - it won't negotiate.
Humans sometimes will.... Sometimes.....
- And that's the difference.
I am sorry but what I am trying to piont out is if you take guns out of the picure there will be no threat.........There will be no Tiger...No boggie Man....No Fear only peace
The difficulty here is that we're discussing an essentially American focal point. And you and I are British.
I think it would be very difficult for any American to see this item of the Constitution erased....
We're on opposite sides of the pond, and while we find it easy to question such legislation, for Americans it is a way of life.
Whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' is immaterial, and unfortunately, largely unsolvable.
Morally, generally, I would say it's wrong.
But as I've said before, if the chips were down....
Palzang
How do you know I HAVE a Mind....?:p
Remove the gun
The knife, club and spear still exist
Remove the gun
Evil still exists
Remove the gun
Attachment still exists
Remove attachment
Evil ceases to exist
Morally, generally, I would say it's wrong.
But as I've said before, if the chips were down....
We have a chance in 2008.........this is our only chance. I beg of you to see this as an opportunity. People like Huntlife 4 are in a minority. Without hope we are nothing.
"Only love can conquer hate" Neil Young.
In the end, we all want the same thing:
To be happy and free from suffering....
each of us must strive for that in the most Compassionate way we know how to muster.
"If it looks like Wisdom, but it is not loving, then it is not Wisdom.
If it feels like Love, but is not wise, then it is not Love.
Like the two wings that enable a bird to fly, Love and Wisdom are Interdependent."
In order to achieve the impossible, this is what we need.
happy new year everyone;
Much love,
Fede
I'm not sure what "people like Hunt4life" is. Those who practice kindness and believe in freedom?
I think he thinks I am evil. I think he is wrong.
In Buddhism, avijja is the only real "tiger" we need to fear. Conquer that and:
"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done! There is nothing further for the sake of this world." - MN 36
In that case, why is there so much time wasted talking about guns and tigers?
Jason
The mentality is obtuse. Cruelty, violence, rape, murder are all around. Most brought about in this country by the beloved hand gun. So enough of the history.
Until now,as for myself, I dig in and avoid. I admire you HH. You have guts.( I think that's an American cliche) And I have learned from your posts that I will in the future speak out more against guns here in America. It's just one voice maybe to influence others. I'll keep you posted. Thanks
We did it because we believed that the possession of weapons signified an aggressive stance. The wolf does not bare its teeth without the intention to attack.
We also lived in a society where personal gun owning was a cultural no-no. Had I lived in a gun-owning society, I would probably have demonstrated against that as well. It is a sad fact that, despite more than 60 years of life, I have yet to lose my juvenile belief that one person can and must effect change which will resonate throughout society.
Quoique vous fassiez, écrasez l'infâme.
Voltaire
Why not take the fear out of the picture and leave the poor tiger alone? Removing the tiger removes the symptom -- not the problem.
gassho
-fd-
Blaming the gun...
If I am attacked by an angry man with a stick, is it the fault of the stick?
Poor 'ol tiger
I have friends who want to restrict religious freedom for Muslims to help prevent terrorists attacks because its usually Muslims that have killed so many Americans.
Equally as reasonable, or unreasonable, depending on your fears I guess.
Islam isn't the problem, religion is.
To strike a person with a stick one must look them in the eye. To shoot someone with a gun can be done at a distance and may not even know them. Very cowardly.
And you think I'm nuts.
Once again -- blaming the invention rather than the underlying fear and hopelessness that created "need" for the invention.
gassho
-fd-
I have to disagree with you - I believe you are forgetting about how resourceful people are.
There are no handguns allowed in prison - yet there are all sort of murders that take place in prisons. You'd be amazed at what inmates can make a weapon out of.
The ruling class of Japan removed the right to bear arms to the peasants. Those same peasants are now known for creating beautiful martial arts that include the sai, bo, kama, nunchaku, etc. These were incredibly effective killing utensils used for protecting one and one's family.
We should get rid of ropes and cars - since idiotic rednecks can drag a helpless human being (by the neck) behind a car until they are dead.
We should definitely get rid of cars - I don't know how many thousands of people have been killed by cars. And alcohol - lots of people killed by alcohol. And doctors... lots of people killed by doctors.
Yes, if you placed gun control in effect - the general populace would not be able to carry guns. The violent people of this world would still own them and innocent civilians will still be killed.
I think we're placing too much emphasis on "guns". Removing guns from our society will not make this a Utopian place to live. It's the "human" race that decides to kill people - whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Maybe what we need is government Mind Control. Yeah... that's the ticket. Then EVERYTHING will be okay.
-bf
You and I don't live in prison......at least I don't. I am not debating or ever contradicting your point that the potiential for evil that excisting all of us nor am I talking about the potiential for good that excists in all of us.
My point is simply this if we are all looking for is the most civilised way to live our lives we must take responsiblity then we vote or abstain.
I admit what I am about to is subjective, never the less I believe and I thing it's already been proven that people respond positively and negatively depending on what political and social enviroment's that they live in.
You might own a gun and hopefully go through you whole life not ever needing to us it. But it's the not people like you that bother me.
What if the state denies it's citizens an opportunity to own and pistol or AK47. You are right it might not stop intent for evil but it might stop that person walking into a public school because they have had a bad day or stop talking their medication and spraying innocent children and staff with bullets.
You have to agree that if someone with the same intent has a knife it would still be horiffic but it would be less of a tragedy.
Of course there's always the threat a Japanese ninja's causing havoc at graduation.
Mind control is not what I am calling for and I think you know that. I only wish for responsible goverment. What is currently in place is a Republician administration that sleeps with the NRA.
I say it again, in European Goverment mind control has been defeated. Firstly it was the NAZI'S then a rotten Soviet regime. Anything that smacks of mind control by any goverment in Europe is jumped upon immediately by Politicians and the free media( with the exception of Murdoch) it's called democracy.
HH
Heh heh....
Herman,
I'm not arguing either. And I actually agree with you. I don't own any type of a gun. I have no need for a gun. I don't like being around guns and don't like them around me.
And I'm not arguing about convicted felons in prison killing each other - although technically there have been people in prison that were innocent of the charges against them... but I digress.
I'm just saying that truly and ultimately, it's not the guns - it's people that don't give a rat's ass about their fellow human being. Besides accidents (which is another reason to have some sort of gun control) - it's the intent of people that kill people.
That's why I threw in government subsidized lobotomies for EVERYONE!
Hurrah!
-bf
Personally, I prefer bare legs:wow:
But bare arms will do.
Om mane padme Hmmmmmmmmm
-fd-
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed in the US Constitution to serve as a deterrent to two things, that the Government does not overstep its' bounds, and that a foriegn power would not readily invade merely for the sake of conquest. The 2nd Amendment is the biggest guarantee of internal peace that US citizens have.
Actually, the second amendment as written was intended to assure the availability of citizens equipped to defend their own communities and (by extension) the nation. What really screwed up the 2nd A was the establishment of a standing military -- a beast the constitutional framers loathed and distrusted. (With good reason.) What the framers of the constitution saw was more along the lines of the Swiss Military than a juggernaut of oppression and empire.
Cordially,
fd
This comes down to why Buddhism and many Martial Arts are so intertwined. One of the aspects of having peace seems to be having the power and ability to enforce and protect that peace.
I read on a site for the AK47 in the US the section about safety, apart from all the obvious advice it said that 'When hunting be careful climbing over fences when carrying your weapon'
HUNTING WHAT WITH AN AK47
"Automatic" AK47's are not for the general populace in the US. However, semi-automatic AK47's (one shot with each pull of the trigger) can be legally owned by the general [law-abiding] public in most states and, are no different (other than its "spooky" appearance) than the vast majority of more recognizable and accepted hunting rifles. The 'power' of the AK47 is actually much less than standard big game rifles.
The favored weapon of terrorists is not the AK47. In fact, their weapon if choice is not even a gun; its is the bomb. More people are being killed in the a war in Iraq (American soldiers and Iraqi civilians) with IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices) that with guns. The second favorite weapon of terrorist is the combination of a knife and and video camera - Cutting a man's head off to instill fear is a powerful weapon. Terror is a powerful weapon.
"Automatic" AK47's are not for the general populace in the US. However, semi-automatic AK47's (one shot with each pull of the trigger) can be legally owned by the general [law-abiding] public in most states and, are no different (other than its "spooky" appearance) than the vast majority of more recognizable and accepted hunting rifles. The 'power' of the AK47 is actually much less than standard big game rifles".
Oh and how about the not so law abiding folk. I would love you go a talk up these needs of owning a hand guns to the victims families.
What are you protecting yourself from ? Is the answer Commies....Er No! Terrorists....Er... Not sure on that one... Maybe it's your neigbour who also has a gun....
Take the gun away and you still have motive. But it's just motive.
The (your) question is "Did Buddha say we have the right to bare arm....ie AK47"
I don't know that Buddha gave any direction regarding it. One person suggested Buddha didn't speak of rights.
I don't think the point (as the discussion has morphed into) is to endorse carrying weapons. Rather, for me, it is asking whether a Buddhist can/should protect himself (or others) with potentially lethal means. Re: should a "good" Buddhist allow himself to be killed? And, does a "good" Buddhist sit idly by and watch the slaughter/rape/torture of others when s/he could stop it?
That's a tough question, "Buddhawise", I think.
Take the guns off the streets and peace will be the victor. There will aways be people like yourself that hold less than moderate views on all the issues that we have fought over before. Remember you still haven't answers my question on poverty,health care and a level playing field on education.
All you have come up with is tax cuts, less goverment and the above relying on charity.
It time for you to go back to school if you can afford the fee's or want to beg for hand outs.
Man, you are going to be heart broken in 2008.
You are not part of the solution you are just part of the problem.
HH
I certainly agree with you.
Mr. Hesses appears to be simply trolling now.
Nothing skillful about that.
Tsk tsk.
Jason