A
Amaris
Guest
Because after reading this guy's article, it's clear he sees himself as some kind of urban cowboy, walking the line between justice and crime every day. He's looking for some heroic action.
J.
Why Gun is Civilization...
- Thread starter msbae
- Start date
Because after reading this guy's article, it's clear he sees himself as some kind of urban cowboy, walking the line between justice and crime every day. He's looking for some heroic action.
J.
Then if I mis quoted then I apologizeNow I'm even more confused. I didn't selectively parse anything. At least I didn't think so. Unless your belief that a society shouldn't protect its own people is related to a bizarre string of statements accusing me of being a Right Wing extremist?Dont selectively parse the quote and it becomes relevantHello? Are you talking in your sleep? Or was this really directed at me for some reason?
The Supreme Court outlawed the Police, FBI, et al?So do tell me where it says that the government has the duty to do so? All the preamble says is that the government will to its best to allow the citizen to have the opportunity to strike out on their own and that the citizen is still the master and responsible for their own success or failure. The preamble is not a "Hey here is the government teat, suck on it and we'll take care of you from cradle to grave" statement. Funny thing is that the US Supreme Court agrees with me. The citizen is responsible for their own protection from criminals and the state is not.Er... are you joking? Are you trying to tell me that one of the purposes of civilization is not to protect its members? A society that doesn't protect its citizens is not a society; it's just a bunch of people living near each other. But here's one reference that you might find useful:
I see in the Preamble that two of the purposes of our specific civilization is to "promote domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defence." I would hardly describe law enforcement as "sucking on the common teat."Why do you hate America?
[/quote]No promoting means giving people the opportunity. Providing for the common defense is meant against all enemies, foreign and domestic, by the armed forces of the federal government. That means they are not responsible for law enforcement within the nations states, cities, towns, etc... In fact the US Supreme Court has established that LEO agencies are not responsible for the individuals protection and it is incumbent upon the individual to provide for their own security and defense within the confines of laws and the constitution. As for asking me why I hate America? I'm not the one who wants to restrict constitutional freedoms
No, if criminals woulnt steal them then that wouldnt be happening. Oh and what does a fixed magazine have to do with anything, especially since the 'saturday night special' is by tradition a revolver and not a semi automatic pistol?
and how quickly you demonstrate your lack of education and your failure to recogonize the falsehood of your position. You said you were afraid of your neighbor. You have said you wont do anything to protect your self. So why have you not dont anything about it? Why not at least call the LEOs?
He came over one day and banged on my door and yelled at me. I considered that to be rather threatening.
Oh, so NOW we're advocating going to the police? How quickly this thread can shift its tracks.
Maybe. Try defending yourself against a 9 iron being swung at you. You get one chance to deflect it. If you don't then you have a split skull and death. Pretty much the same time line after all.
by people like you, I agree 100%.
Please tell me about the wild west and the crime rate and use of firearms as it actually happened, not the Hollywood version. I'll wait a few days for the research. Oh and as for 'using' it..yep its being used the same way that that rascally Supreme Court has upheld things like desegregation and freedom of speech. I know, how disingenuous
Depending on the conditions, yes they could. You have to have a critical mass of resistors. So long as the populace is behind those resisting and not behind the military then the answer is yes. Would it be easy? Oh hell no. Do I want that situation to ever come about? In a pigs ass. But I am talking about objective realities.1) Do you think that citizens could wage a successful open military battle against the US military and force a surrender?
Agreed. And I do not and never will promote forcing anyone to carry. Its a personal choice if one wants to exercise that right or not.
No. Thus, "obscene."
Okay.
But then you do it again.No promoting means giving people the opportunity. Providing for the common defense is meant against all enemies, foreign and domestic, by the armed forces of the federal government. That means they are not responsible for law enforcement within the nations states, cities, towns, etc... In fact the US Supreme Court has established that LEO agencies are not responsible for the individuals protection and it is incumbent upon the individual to provide for their own security and defense within the confines of laws and the constitution. As for asking me why I hate America? I'm not the one who wants to restrict constitutional freedoms
It may still be hard to defend yourself but clearly it is easier to kill somebody with a gun than a golf club if you know how to use one. You don't even need to be within swinging distance and your victim has no chance at all of defending themselves.
That's really the big difference between a gun and pretty much any other kind of weapon.
Why would you have me call the police, given that you do not believe that said police have any useful function:
Why do people have to resort to the lowest debate tactics possible (outside of TNZ I mean)? Why can't people just argue in good faith instead of purposely misstating the opposition's arguments for a weak "gotcha"?
Forgive me, but I found what I was referencing
to which my original reply stands.
Indeed. Based on your assertation that no one should own one, my question stands:But then you do it again.No promoting means giving people the opportunity. Providing for the common defense is meant against all enemies, foreign and domestic, by the armed forces of the federal government. That means they are not responsible for law enforcement within the nations states, cities, towns, etc... In fact the US Supreme Court has established that LEO agencies are not responsible for the individuals protection and it is incumbent upon the individual to provide for their own security and defense within the confines of laws and the constitution. As for asking me why I hate America? I'm not the one who wants to restrict constitutional freedoms
So you love restricting the freedom of others? What other restrictions would you place upon someone who is doing no one any harm? When did you become the arbiter of rights?
and that is the supreme courts decision, not mine. My question still stands to you. If you believe that they are responsible for your protection, why have you not invoked their services?
The issue was that rental car tags at the time all started with the letter Z. So yeah it made a lot of the tourists stand out like sore thumbs. And yes, the criminals were intentionally targeting them, but mainly around Miami. Now they just do stuff like home invasions at the residence of a police officer (link) and try to kill the occupants.
Other things that make tourists stand out down here is the deep, dark tan that they worked on up north in tanning beds so they wouldnt look like tourists. The problem is that we're not so tan. We're aware of the dangers of prolonged sun exposure
Well, my neighbor hasn't actually threatened me physically yet. (Coming over and banging on my door probably does not count.) So I would have nothing to tell them. Probably my best bet would be to enlist the aid of my *other* neighbors - a biker family.
As for me and a gun? Two problems with that, that I can see. Firstly, as I said, I have never even held a gun, let alone shot one. So you stuff a gun into my hand and I would be clumsy, at best. The recoil alone would probably knock me on my ass.
Secondly, even if I learned how to use a gun, I don't trust myself with it. I am one of these people I mentioned, who shouldn't own a gun. Now I would never go out and willingly shoot someone, but I do have a temper, and who knows what I'd do if somebody really pissed me off? I might lose control and do something without realizing it.So the end result of all this is, basically, I don't want to have a gun, and I definitely don't want to have to have one in order to be protected. That's not a responsibility that should be forced onto the common citizen. I *do* believe that the function of the police is to protect us and to keep our streets safe. (If my neighbor does wave a gun in my general direction, I will call the cops, no question about that.) I guess I can respect a sufficiently dedicated person choosing to stock up on sufficient methods of defense, but we don't all have that kind of talent. We shouldn't be made to turn our homes, our communities, into armed camps just to have the protection we're entitled to...
And I also don't want to constantly live in fear that anyone I might meet on the street, or at work, could have a gun, and could therefore shoot me for whatever reason (or none at all). I've bitched quite a bit about customers at my store, for example; you think I want to risk one of *them* being armed? What if they decide to shoot me because I carded them for buying booze? Or if they think they should get a discount? Now you see the problem, yes?
Ok so you have the standard loony neighbor.
Well, my neighbor hasn't actually threatened me physically yet. (Coming over and banging on my door probably does not count.) So I would have nothing to tell them. Probably my best bet would be to enlist the aid of my *other* neighbors - a biker family.
and I applaud you for understanding your limits. I wish more folks would. But if you ever come down this way and you have a day, I will gladly take you to the range and give you a class of instruction so at least you are familiar with what a firearm can do.As for me and a gun? Two problems with that, that I can see. Firstly, as I said, I have never even held a gun, let alone shot one. So you stuff a gun into my hand and I would be clumsy, at best. The recoil alone would probably knock me on my ass.
and thats perfectly fine
You have to take that up with the US Supreme Court. You also have to understand and acknowledge what this nation was founded on.
So what do you think you are entitled to? Do you really want a police state to ensure your safety and freedoms. And yes, that level of pervasiveness will be required for what you want.
Non sequitor. Law abiding citizens have the right to carry regardless of your level of insecurity based on your rude behavior. The ones you need to fear are the criminals, not the law abiding citizens. The criminals are the ones that wont listen to the law anyways. And Im not saying they should shoot you, but it sounds like you are quite less than courteous to your customers. A more likely response by an irate customer would, at the worst, be to get your teeth knocked in. Why not just be polite to people in general or find another line of work?
I don't hate police officers, I just don't want to trust them. Since power always corrupts, I tend to regard anyone with power I don't have with great suspicion. Even my best friend wouldn't be exempt from this rule.
Some people develop a tolerance to pepper spray and/or Mace.
Tasers can be effective but, they are not as easy to acquire. I can't walk into any sporting goods store in America and buy a Taser. I can walk into any sporting goods store in America and buy a gun.
Also, there's a psychological impact that a firearm has that Tasers don't. Tasers don't normally kill. A firearm does. Gun = Death is an easy enough equation for any social reject-turned-criminal to understand.
That is a very scary and sobering thought.
Directed towards TheBrew:
First, I like that someone besides me started thinking about Social Contract Theory with regards to this thread.
Second,
You actually believe this crap?
Try telling that to the criminal that wants to break into my house in the middle of the night. He broke into my home and thus made himself a danger to myself and my family. I don't know what his intentions are in this particular crime. I can't be sure if he won't try to rape my 21 year-old sister or just try to steal a DVD player. Either way, I can assure you he will be shot on sight. If there were ever a reason to be armed, this is the one.I'll give you another example, my father's job. He's a contractor and he does occasionally give estimates to property owners in New Orleans East. New Orleans East is one of the most dangerous places in America today. Over half of the 300-400 murders New Orleans has every year happens there and police presence is sketchy at best. That's the reason he got a CCW a few years ago and carries a pistol in his truck. Considering that he's a responsible citizen, I see no need to deny him the right to protect himself.
Finally, since you mentioned Thomas Hobbes, what about a Hobbesian nightmare? We had one in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. You might have seen something about it on the news. Anyway, if I stayed for that storm, you can bet your ass I would have been prepared to shoot someone. While the JPSO and National Guard (supposedly) shot 8 looters in MY neighborhood, they could have just as easily been somewhere else instead. Their resources were spread pretty thin.
Third,
Every Guerrilla War fighter that has ever lived has just screamed 'Bullshit!' It's quite possible to snipe a soldier with weapons available to the citizenry. Tanks can be destroyed with homemade incendiary devices. What do you think al-Qaeda in Iraq has been doing for the last few years?
Guns (and other weapons) are just tools. What people do with these tools is what is either good or bad.
Okay, I'm going to guess that you're insinuating that I've somewhere stated that guns should be banned-- which means that you've either never paid attention to a single thing I've said in all the years I've been here, or you just can't control the knee-jerk impulse to give the standard gun culture response.Forgive me, but I found what I was referencing
to which my original reply stands.
But then you do it again.No promoting means giving people the opportunity. Providing for the common defense is meant against all enemies, foreign and domestic, by the armed forces of the federal government. That means they are not responsible for law enforcement within the nations states, cities, towns, etc... In fact the US Supreme Court has established that LEO agencies are not responsible for the individuals protection and it is incumbent upon the individual to provide for their own security and defense within the confines of laws and the constitution. As for asking me why I hate America? I'm not the one who wants to restrict constitutional freedoms
Indeed. Based on your assertation that no one should own one, my question stands:
So you love restricting the freedom of others? What other restrictions would you place upon someone who is doing no one any harm? When did you become the arbiter of rights?
The Supreme Court of the United States made no such ruling, despite the frequent claims to the contrary by gun advocates. That was The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which was formerly known as The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. That ruling had no effect outside of DC.
However, courts in other states and municipalities have made similar rulings to avoid rampant lawsuits if police should happen to fail in protecting an individual from harm. It was not intended to grant an excuse for police to actively ignore a crime in progress, it's simply seeking to avoid the inevitable tide of lawsuits one would expect in our extremely litigious society should the police fail to "serve and protect" in every situation.
Though a lawsuit would seem to have been completely justified for the gross negligence of the DC police in the Warren vs. DC case, the court made the following ruling:
At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.
It's basically all just about state and local governments not wanting to lose a large portion of their law enforcement budget to litigation, not about saying "Hey, we don't have to protect you if we don't want to."
You can still sue law enforcement for failure to protect, though under federal law there are fairly strict guidelines for when such a case has legal merit. A "special relationship" between law enforcement and the individual has to exist - such as with people in police custody/prisoners, people actively aiding police in the investigation of a crime, people under assigned police protection (witnesses for example), etc.
They still will provide protection as part of their legally required service to the public at large, it's just that sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one. So you can't sue the police because they were all tied-up protecting a presidential motorcade while you were beaten and robbed for 30 minutes twenty blocks away. They'll try, they just can't always make it.
I'm sure many of the same people using this court decision to support their agenda would also oppose rampant lawsuits against the police any time they failed to protect someone, right?
Okay, I'm going to guess that you're insinuating that I've somewhere stated that guns should be banned-- which means that you've either never paid attention to a single thing I've said in all the years I've been here, or you just can't control the knee-jerk impulse to give the standard gun culture response.
Your statement was:
So answer the question and quit dodging. So you love restricting the freedom of others? What other restrictions would you place upon someone who is doing no one any harm? When did you become the arbiter of rights? Based on your statement it is a very fair question. You said it.RJDiogenes said:
^^^ Saying that you personally think someone doesn't have a need for something and saying that you want it banned are two entirely different things. You're getting so defensive about it that you're jumping to conclusions.
I can say "no one needs a cigarette." It doesn't mean I'm advocating outlawing smoking.
I can say "no one needs a cigarette." It doesn't mean I'm advocating outlawing smoking.
Power doesn't *always* corrupt. It *tends* to corrupt, yes. But it's not universal.
And besides, even if it does always corrupt, then the power gained by being armed also corrupts...
and I have taken his past posting history into context when making my reply. I also have a big problem with person A saying that person B doesn't need something that is legal simply because Person A doesn't like it. On top of it, the idea of "you don't need it" is the mantra of the anti-gun crowd and the first line of though that they use in their efforts to abridge rights of those in the US. Based on their past history, forgive me for being extremely skeptical.
Not to keep speaking for RJ on this, but if he has a "history" of anything here, it's been a pretty staunch defense of the US Constitution and the rights it bestows. That doesn't mean you two can't disagree on the details or interpretation of course...
Similar threads
