Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

"Based on your words here, the problem is not neccessarily democracy or capitalism, but rather campaign finance."



Yes and no.

First, the nomination process in both our governments is run from the top down. The people in power WITHIN the two parties (and all the other minor parties) are a small group of people with vested interests who decide who the candidates will be. Those people will always be people who will want to preserve the status quo under those two parties' policies.

THEN the corporate powers finance them often financing the candidates of BOTH parties since they both serve their corporate masters (and not the people).

So, IMO the problem is that we have devolved from a somewhat democratic representative republic with a capitalist system to a straight out oligarchy; rule by the rich, of the rich and for the rich.

We now have a lack of democracy (rule by the people) in government and that is totalitarianism.
We now still have a lack of participatory democracy in our economic lives which is something that did NOT change when both the United States and Jamaica (and any other colonial state) got its independence.

Even if you end the way campaigns are now financed and go to public financing, we will still have the parties choosing the people for whom we get to vote and they have always mainly been those with power and money with their main interests in keeping things the way they are which is non-democratic.

In the United States the founding fathers also mainly wealthy people excluded women and slaves from voting. They created the Senate as a U.S. version of the House of Lords to make sure that the House of Representatives which represented the common people did not have ultimate power.
They deliberately limited democracy to preserve the privilege of the wealthy.

Today the situation has gotten much, much worse.

Even the limiting power of the Senate is dwarfed by the power of the corporations in establishing the power of the wealthy.

Today the top 5% or so control about 80% of the wealth of the United States and these figures are not much different in most other capitalist countries..
These figures are just approximations -no time to look them up- but so close to the reality that it doesn't matter if they are off some )


That could not happen in a democracy.

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

Based on the little history lesson there, I am getting the impression that you dont believe we ever had a real democracy - or am i mistaken?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">&quot;Based on your words here, the problem is not neccessarily democracy or capitalism, but rather campaign finance.&quot;



Yes and no.

First, the nomination process in both our governments is run from the top down. The people in power WITHIN the two parties (and all the other minor parties) are a small group of people with vested interests who decide who the candidates will be. Those people will always be people who will want to preserve the status quo under those two parties' policies.

THEN the corporate powers finance them often financing the candidates of BOTH parties since they both serve their corporate masters (and not the people).

So, IMO the problem is that we have devolved from a somewhat democratic representative republic with a capitalist system to a straight out oligarchy; rule by the rich, of the rich and for the rich.

We now have a lack of democracy (rule by the people) in government and that is totalitarianism.
We now still have a lack of participatory democracy in our economic lives which is something that did NOT change when both the United States and Jamaica (and any other colonial state) got its independence.

Even if you end the way campaigns are now financed and go to public financing, we will still have the parties choosing the people for whom we get to vote and they have always mainly been those with power and money with their main interests in keeping things the way they are which is non-democratic.

In the United States the founding fathers also mainly wealthy people excluded women and slaves from voting. They created the Senate as a U.S. version of the House of Lords to make sure that the House of Representatives which represented the common people did not have ultimate power.
They deliberately limited democracy to preserve the privilege of the wealthy.

Today the situation has gotten much, much worse.

Even the limiting power of the Senate is dwarfed by the power of the corporations in establishing the power of the wealthy.

Today the top 5% or so control about 80% of the wealth of the United States and these figures are not much different in most other capitalist countries..
These figures are just approximations -no time to look them up- but so close to the reality that it doesn't matter if they are off some )


That could not happen in a democracy.



</div></div>

[jah_yout]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we ever had a real democracy -</div></div>


we never had a real democracy but we have had and still have a real <span style="font-weight: bold">demon</span>-cracy

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

Quodlibet,

I'm not sure if you're talking about The United States or Jamaica but it really does not make that much difference.

In the United States we (ostensibly) have a representative republic.

Under that system the voters elect someone to be their spokesperson in the government. The people elected are supposed to represent the interests of the people who elect them to do that job.

The Representatives in the House and the Senators in the Senate might once long ago have represented the people but that is certainly not the case now.

They are bought and paid for by big money interests and are quite openly voting as the monied interests would have them do in order to preserve the wealth, privilege and favorable laws that keep them very rich and very powerful.

NO, we do not live in a democracy or even in a representative republic since those elected represent the interests of the two parties and the big money people/corporations that finance their campaigns.

That form of government is called an oligarchy. It is totalitarian in nature.
It is the antithesis of democracy.

In short, capitalism is the boss. Capitalism is what determines how the government will vote, what wars we get into, who lives grandly and who and how many live in poverty.

The capitalists, own the government and in fact, the Senate is mostly millionaires and the House has its large share of very wealthy people and most often when they vote to benefit the wealthy , they are also helping themselves.
Sure there are a few like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinicz (sp?) but that's less than 1% of Congress.


I do not think that anyone would argue that capitalism is not totalitarian in nature .
IMO, were the United States a democracy or had a truly representative Congress and president, capitalism would be outlawed as very harmful to the health of the nation and world.

If you or anyone else would care to argue that we DO have a democratic form of government I'd be interested in how you deny the points I constantly make to point out why it isn't.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

The only reason Why Jamaica like most colonies, third world or otherwise, only allow the minority whites and breadfruit to have firearms legally is to maintain the corrupt status quo That exists.

S d the corruption is not limited to the little people they are prosecuting.

It involve the untouchables who are above laws.

Those who can order the military aircraft This do their bidding.though they have never joined the military.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sofisa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And of course participating in the revolution was armed, no? </div></div>

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

I must read from your words then, that since capitalism at best leads to oligarchy and at worst totalitarianism, we have not had democracy for the entire history of either country...

Unless we also dismiss the population as ignorant and incapacitated, wouldn't we best decide that this is what the people accept as their reality of government, no matter the label?

And if they they do accept the form of government, isn't that a form of democracy?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quodlibet,

I'm not sure if you're talking about The United States or Jamaica but it really does not make that much difference.

In the United States we (ostensibly) have a representative republic.

Under that system the voters elect someone to be their spokesperson in the government. The people elected are supposed to represent the interests of the people who elect them to do that job.

The Representatives in the House and the Senators in the Senate might once long ago have represented the people but that is certainly not the case now.

They are bought and paid for by big money interests and are quite openly voting as the monied interests would have them do in order to preserve the wealth, privilege and favorable laws that keep them very rich and very powerful.

NO, we do not live in a democracy or even in a representative republic since those elected represent the interests of the two parties and the big money people/corporations that finance their campaigns.

That form of government is called an oligarchy. It is totalitarian in nature.
It is the antithesis of democracy.

In short, capitalism is the boss. Capitalism is what determines how the government will vote, what wars we get into, who lives grandly and who and how many live in poverty.

The capitalists, own the government and in fact, the Senate is mostly millionaires and the House has its large share of very wealthy people and most often when they vote to benefit the wealthy , they are also helping themselves.
Sure there are a few like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinicz (sp?) but that's less than 1% of Congress.


I do not think that anyone would argue that capitalism is not totalitarian in nature .
IMO, were the United States a democracy or had a truly representative Congress and president, capitalism would be outlawed as very harmful to the health of the nation and world.

If you or anyone else would care to argue that we DO have a democratic form of government I'd be interested in how you deny the points I constantly make to point out why it isn't.




</div></div>

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

I must read from your words then, that since capitalism at best leads to oligarchy and at worst totalitarianism, we have not had democracy for the entire history of either country...

Unless we also dismiss the population as ignorant and incapacitated, wouldn't we best decide that this is what the people accept as their reality of government, no matter the label?

And if they they do accept the form of government, isn't that a form of democracy?



Quodlibet,

Slaves also accepted their status because they were told that's the way things ought to be.
In the United States the indoctrination starts at a very early age teaching us all that the United States is a democracy, that we have free elections, that our system is the best there is, that capitalism creates wealth without mentioning the poverty that results.

As with revolutions anywhere, increasingly unbearable conditions have to show the dumbed-down/propagandized people of a given country that what they have been told is not true. Once that happens and a path is shown to a better way, things change.

In Jamaica you have the added control of religious beliefs that tell the people that praying will change things as needed and that we have to suffer and that we will always have poverty as well as the government and media mind control to keep people complacent. So the people turn toward other means of bettering their lives:, crime, drugs, prayer, none of which work in the long run except to worsen their lives.

Wallowing in our ignorance and acceptance of the unacceptable, we have the totalitarian forms of capitalism and sham democracies handed to us.

The status quo is unacceptable and radical change is unacceptable to the peoples of both countries so we muddle through and watch things slide downhill.

In time conditions will worsen to the point that revolutionary change becomes inevitable.

Given that the people at the top of both the economy and the governments will not permit revolutionary change since these people at the top would lose out, violent revolution often becomes necessary. Where a complete turnout of the old forms does not happen as in Venezuela, those remnants of the old order create enormous problems.

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I must read from your words then, that since capitalism at best leads to oligarchy and at worst totalitarianism, we have not had democracy for the entire history of either country...

Unless we also dismiss the population as ignorant and incapacitated, wouldn't we best decide that this is what the people accept as their reality of government, no matter the label?

And if they they do accept the form of government, isn't that a form of democracy?



Quodlibet,

Slaves also accepted their status because they were told that's the way things ought to be.
In the United States the indoctrination starts at a very early age teaching us all that the United States is a democracy, that we have free elections, that our system is the best there is, that capitalism creates wealth without mentioning the poverty that results.

As with revolutions anywhere, increasingly unbearable conditions have to show the dumbed-down/propagandized people of a given country that what they have been told is not true. Once that happens and a path is shown to a better way, things change.

In Jamaica you have the added control of religious beliefs that tell the people that praying will change things as needed and that we have to suffer and that we will always have poverty as well as the government and media mind control to keep people complacent. So the people turn toward other means of bettering their lives:, crime, drugs, prayer, none of which work in the long run except to worsen their lives.

Wallowing in our ignorance and acceptance of the unacceptable, we have the totalitarian forms of capitalism and sham democracies handed to us.

The status quo is unacceptable and radical change is unacceptable to the peoples of both countries so we muddle through and watch things slide downhill.

In time conditions will worsen to the point that revolutionary change becomes inevitable.

Given that the people at the top of both the economy and the governments will not permit revolutionary change since these people at the top would lose out, violent revolution often becomes necessary. Where a complete turnout of the old forms does not happen as in Venezuela, those remnants of the old order create enormous problems. </div></div>

I tend to disagree with your core thesis, ie &quot;Slaves also accepted their status because they were told that's the way things ought to be.&quot; This is wholly untrue. Slaves were treated in extremely inhumane ways, which perverted their entire sense of reality - to use slavery as the example through which we then consider our reality today, is to bring into question the very nature of our reality itself...

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

I tend to disagree with your core thesis, ie &quot;Slaves also accepted their status because they were told that's the way things ought to be.&quot; This is wholly untrue. Slaves were treated in extremely inhumane ways, which perverted their entire sense of reality - to use slavery as the example through which we then consider our reality today, is to bring into question the very nature of our reality itself...
_________________________

Quodlibet,

The term &quot;Uncle Tom&quot; was/is a reference to those blacks who believed their status as slaves and lesser people was as it should be or at least acquiesced to their condition.
The adoption of turn-the-other-cheek Christianity was also a sign of acceptance of their status.

I agree totally that this way of thinking was forced upon them but that fact in no way changes the reality that they did not fight against the system.

This thinking more or less parallels the thinking in the States and elsewhere among the poor and oppressed of the world that capitalism is the way things are; that the system is unchangeable. Capitalism is strictly enforced and in a more murderous fashion than was slavery and as it was with slavery, so it is with capitalism.
The evil that IT is is accepted as the way things must be.
Generations of indoctrination make this so and in a very strong way.

Those who fight the &quot;way things are&quot; are relatively few.
Those relative few understand the truth and are willing to suffer the consequences of their rebellion.

Most people have always preferred to live as slaves than possibly die to become free men and women.

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<span style="font-size: 11pt"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I tend to disagree with your core thesis, ie &quot;Slaves also accepted their status because they were told that's the way things ought to be.&quot; This is wholly untrue. Slaves were treated in extremely inhumane ways, which perverted their entire sense of reality - to use slavery as the example through which we then consider our reality today, is to bring into question the very nature of our reality itself...
_________________________

Quodlibet,

The term &quot;Uncle Tom&quot; was/is a reference to those blacks who believed their status as slaves and lesser people was as it should be or at least acquiesced to their condition.
The adoption of turn-the-other-cheek Christianity was also a sign of acceptance of their status.

I agree totally that this way of thinking was forced upon them but that fact in no way changes the reality that they did not fight against the system.

This thinking more or less parallels the thinking in the States and elsewhere among the poor and oppressed of the world that capitalism is the way things are; that the system is unchangeable. Capitalism is strictly enforced and in a more murderous fashion than was slavery and as it was with slavery, so it is with capitalism.
The evil that IT is is accepted as the way things must be.
Generations of indoctrination make this so and in a very strong way.

Those who fight the &quot;way things are&quot; are relatively few.
Those relative few understand the truth and are willing to suffer the consequences of their rebellion.

Most people have always preferred to live as slaves than possibly die to become free men and women.
</div></div>

If the major historians were the same ones who were the enslavers, we will never truly know how well the enslaved fought back. Being &quot;happy&quot; and &quot;accepting&quot; of the role of slaves was part of the misinformation campaign sent back to Europe so that &quot;gentle society&quot; could enjoy the products of that free and forced labor with a clear conscience.

<span style="font-style: italic">But this discussion is getting a little side tracked</span> - so I thought I would take a quote from a Gleaner article (directed via a post in my forum)

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100813/lead/lead1.html

In the article, the slain gunman wrote in his diary that
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">&quot;<span style="font-weight: bold">I fired my AK-47 until my fingers were numb. I ate gunpowder until my throat was sore</span>. Babylon feel seh man a fool like dem and dem can jus come and kill mi. Them betta know seh gangsta fi life. All out when mi get drawn out, straight bullet fi dem. My gun is my best friend. We are always together.&quot;</div></div>

Simple question: Should regular Jamaicans have to break the law to defend themselves against people like this?</span>

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

When conditions are as violent as they are and the authorities and politicians cannot control that violence then everyone should have the right to arm themselves.
One problem with that is that everyone cannot handle firearms effectively. Old folks, mothers with several children to protect are no match for the people who use guns all the time. It doers not solve the problem of innocent bystanders getting killed.

The real problem is not addressing the cause of the violence which is the despair, joblessness, lack of a good purpose in life that derives from widespread poverty.

The real problem is the economic system which neither the government, nor the media, nor most of the posters here are willing to try to change for a variety of reasons most of which are based on the acceptance of the system.

Is the violence , the cruel killings, the endless cycles of poverty and deprivation, the loss of a binding social order much better than living in slavery?

In fact it is called wage slavery in some quarters.

The only difference between historic slavery and the wage slavery and the conditions under which the poor of Jamaica and the world are forced to live is that the forces in favor of the way things are are much stronger than the anti-slavery forces of the past.

The victims of the new slavery are so well indoctrinated that only a very tiny minority will talk about the alternative. That number is so small that it is of no threat to the new slavery.

There will be, there can be no change given the fact that the people running the country whether they be the JLP/PNP or the wealthy for whom the system is made to order, have no interest in changing a system in which they are at the top.

As has been said when it comes to robbing Peter to pay Paul , you can always count on the unqualified support of Paul.

Treating symptoms to cure a disease only works in the short term.

&quot;Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery&quot;.

The rest will follow.

[quodlibet]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
When conditions are as violent as they are and the authorities and politicians cannot control that violence then everyone should have the right to arm themselves.
...
</div></div>
That is my point, I suggest that conditions would not develop to the level of violence if the potential victims were also armed. Many who find strength behind a gun only find it because their intended victims are not armed.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
One problem with that is that everyone cannot handle firearms effectively. Old folks, mothers with several children to protect are no match for the people who use guns all the time. It doers not solve the problem of innocent bystanders getting killed.
...
</div></div>
That is not a problem. It is the same way each person who can afford a car must get a licence before they can drive, and pass a driving test before they get the licence.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
Treating symptoms to cure a disease only works in the short term.</div></div>
...
[/quote]
If the symptom in this case is killing you, then there is no long term.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

Sorry but guns are readily available in the United States and that availability has not lowered the murder rate.
As long as you have a high poverty rate side-by-side with a very prosperous upper class albeit much smaller than the lower classes and high rates of social and economic despair, you will have money crimes, many of which involve guns.

As said before, Jamaican youth, all youth have the natural sense of immortality and the desire to be looked upon as a dangerous adventurer, a bad dude.
The idea of carrying a fashionable and powerful firearm and going out in a blaze of glory is widespread.
They don't care if their intended victim has a gun or not because they're the baddest guy around.

[danske]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry but guns are readily available in the United States and that availability has not lowered the murder rate.
As long as you have a high poverty rate side-by-side with a very prosperous upper class albeit much smaller than the lower classes and high rates of social and economic despair, you will have money crimes, many of which involve guns.

As said before, Jamaican youth, all youth have the natural sense of immortality and the desire to be looked upon as a dangerous adventurer, a bad dude.
The idea of carrying a fashionable and powerful firearm and going out in a blaze of glory is widespread.
<span style="font-weight: bold">They don't care if their intended victim has a gun or not </span>because they're the baddest guy around. </div></div>

Just about every knows that cops get paid month end in Jamaica. Why aren't these youths storming police stations then? Why aren't monied armoured trucks hit everyday? Sorry pal, they do care about armed resistance.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Guns in Jamaica - the right to bear arms?

The facts are that gang members and others DO get into shootouts with the police on a regular basis.
the gunman may have a wild cowboy mentality but even they aren't going to go up against an armoured car when there is a very, very small chance of success

I'm talking about home invasions, robberies of shops, shootings on the street, the everyday killings. Possession of a weapon by the victims does not deter the yahoos, the crazed, the macho gunmen.

You can give every citizen in Jamaica a weapon and the killings will not go down but up as long as the economy is as it has been since independence.

Throwing more guns into the equation is like throwing gasoline on a fire.