RE: META: i hope this list is bigger than this issue: control/guns/extremism

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 15:23:17 MST

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >From: "Justin Corwin" <>
>Subject: META: i hope this list is bigger than this issue: control/guns/extremism
>Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:28:00 -0700
>to post my position on this recent spiralling thread/threads about
>extremism, guns, and gun control/revoking, whether guns are okay to talk
>about, recently whether self defense is extropic, etc. i don't know anything
>about guns. i've never owned a gun. i really don't know whether they're
>neccesary, or if that's a valid question.
>having said that, i do have some thoughts.
>this list is normally very polite, very intelligent. i can think of very few
>people on this list that haven't posted something very intelligent and
>thoughtful, that i've taken to heart, or revised for my own use.
>i asked a question about guns on this list, i admit. and in retrospect, with
>the debate going on, i likely should have done that offlist, just out of
>respect to the "non-combatants" as it were. but i wanted to get a range of
>it's a little surprising to me that some of the attacks that have occured,
>did. both pro, and anti gun advocates have made rather ugly statements,
>which saddens me a bit.
>i really dont' know which side i fall in, or if either position is
>particularly valid. it's interesting that a "bigger" issue like nanotech
>weaponry, the pros, cons, ability of individuals to control it, etc, is
>readily accepted because nanotech is automatically >H, no matter what it's
>use. in my view, weapon technology is weapon technology, whether nanoscale,
>or macroengineering. if that's to be banned, that sounds fine, but
>unneccesarily repressive.
>Max sent an email to the point that guns as tools or meta discussion of guns
>is not extropic and not relevant to the list. i would disagree, but i
>respect his position. this list is high volume as it is, and we should make
>an effort to constrict it's topics to provide higher utility to it's
>members, as well as avoid unneccesary conflict. on the other hand, i look at
>this list as something of a society of friends. i asked the question
>innocently, actually hoping that some of the people who had disagreed with
>the use of guns would reply, with arguments as to why i, as a undecided
>voter, as it were, should not associate or train with firearms.
>as a "hopefully" society of friends, associated by a transhuman interest, i
>will try to treat you guys/and gals, like i treat my friends. and when there
>is a problem between my friends, we think that there are really only two
>choices, not to bring up the subject, and be polite, or be a little more
>aware, and work it out, finding rules and obeying them, or even just
>agreeing to disagree.
>so can we come to some to some sort of consensus as to what to do about
>this? i dislike unreflective conflict.
Discussing firearms on this list ludditic and is anachronistic. They are basically metallically comprised chemical reaction/detonation powered slingshots, and most of the technology is hundreds of years old (even full auto has been around for more than half a century). In the not-too-far future, the wielders of such weapons will be viewed by most laser or nano-packing futurists about the same way we presently view troglodytes with clubs. I fail to see how adolescently fawning, reveling and jean-creaming over one contemporary model or other of such crude and unsophisticated slingshots does anything to advance extropian causes or accelerate the members of this list on the posthuman path.
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:19 MDT