Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Albatross wrote: With that being said, I don't think particularly many Brits, especially if they lived in a rural area, would find particularly strange the concept of owning a rifle or a shotgun as they have legitimate hunting purposes (and believe it or not, we have that here), and consequently there are Brits who do just that.
But why is shooting paper targets with a rifle legitimate entertainment, while shooting those same paper targets with a pistol dangerous paranoia and violence?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Albatross wrote: If I may, I feel I might address the root of the problem from a European perspective, and I will do my best to keep it respectful.
I think the big disconnect for most of us, and the thing which leads to the most misunderstanding (which in turn leads to quite insulting language from some of the more insensitive and arrogant europeans, as we've seen) is the 'fun' aspect of gun ownership. It's disconcerting for us. We see guns as serious business, not to be trifled with. Yes, a gun is a tool, but it is a tool for killing. A handgun is a tool for killing people - that's it's only real purpose. So, in truth, we find it kind of creepy that someone would own a handgun for 'fun' - what on earth is fun about that? Over here, the sort of people that would find that fun would generally be considered as nutters and to be avoided. With that being said, I don't think particularly many Brits, especially if they lived in a rural area, would find particularly strange the concept of owning a rifle or a shotgun as they have legitimate hunting purposes (and believe it or not, we have that here), and consequently there are Brits who do just that. We have the legal right to own a gun if we want, most of us just choose not to exercise it. It's a cultural thing. Americans just like guns, and that's something we can't wrap our heads around. We see them as dangerous toys, essentially, owned on very thin nationalist or paranoiac pretexts. Americans see them as tools they have grown up around that, if handled properly, can be a fun and rewarding hobby, the exercise of which is enshrined in the constitution. I get that. More power to you. It's none of my business and doesn't really affect me anyway.
I am entitled to express my opinion on the subject, however.
I think the other main reason people cite for owning guns, self-defence, is largely due to the societal arms race caused by the widespread ownership of handguns. This is not to invalidate self-defence as a reason, (I would own a handgun if I lived in the US and was legally allowed to do so, no question) but it is nevertheless a thing. That is not going to be a societally endogeneous change. People own handguns because other people own handguns. I think they should be banned. I see no legitimate reason for a private citizen to own one. I do not consider 'fun' to be a legitimate reason. You can defend your home with a shotgun, you can hunt with a rifle, your right to bear arms would not be infringed, and this (admittedly, daft) woman would probably still be alive. You'd still get to be Americans, you'd just be safer. You could still overthrow the government if you needed to.
After all, your guys didn't defeat our Redcoats with Glock 19s, did they?
That was a very well thought out response and quite enjoyable to read. Thank you. As someone who is not a native to the US I can understand and empathize a lot with where you are coming from.
Concerning handguns they are used more frequently for self defense than for "fun". Especially when the owner is in public. A handgun is significantly less intrusive than longer firearms such as shotguns and rifles, and less likely to draw attention. Owing to the length of long guns they are more likely to get in the way of simple tasks like shopping as they require a sling or hand to keep them out of the way. This is further compounded if you have young children with you, or are physically impaired. Longer guns with more recoil may also be less well suited for those of a more slender frame, a physical disability, or those more advanced in age. Also handguns are a lot easier to operate in confined spaces, such as if you are accosted in your vehicle in a public parking lot.
In public spaces you should have the ability to defend yourself as much as within your home. I know that the legal landscape in the UK was changing after the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 so that police would take a more pro-active stance in safeguarding the right to life. That is not the case in the United States. Here it has been upheld in several cases that the police are under no duty to protect individuals; http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
Spoiler:
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
by Peter Kasler
Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.
Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."
England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens' right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.
Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:
Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]
Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today's society. Police and Sheriff's departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department "dropped" [2] 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]
It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]
About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.
Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."
It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we've seen that they have no duty to do so. And we've also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.
Now it's time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren't duty-bound to protect us, and they can't be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won't protect us if they have the opportunity?
One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.
Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York's high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]
Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco's violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she'd be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn't notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.
In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff's 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: "What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?" Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.
But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman's estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief's. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren't at all rare.
In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because "the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather." [15]
In a much more recent case, [16] a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that "no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing..." [17]
Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let's leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood "real world." I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.
One client of my partner's and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they'd witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn't enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.
In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we're often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can't or won't do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.
She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.
It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn't taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn't or wouldn't help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.
Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren't), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don't, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn't be time enough for them to do it. It's about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.
Add to that now the problems with response times in parts of the United States, and not just in rural areas. In large cities it can be 10 minutes before police arrive to an emergency call. While that may seem like a short time a lot can happen. This video is only six minutes long and the assailant was still able to reach the victim before police arrived
You may wish to exercise your discretion before pressing play
Now take the fact that the police do not owe a duty to protect individuals and apply it to events past and present where law and order is stretched thin; LA Riots, Hurricane Katrina, Ferguson. Even in a genuine life or death emergency it is extremely unlikely that the police will arrive in any meaningful time to protect you and your loved ones.
So when George Carlin jokes that "We live in a country where a pizza arrives before the police" he is right. And tragically it should be no laughing matter. That is why people choose to be their own first responders and want to take steps to protect themselves and their families should the worst happen.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Indeed. The police simply cannot protect you in most situations, even if they were actually required to(and they aren't)
The Police respond to threats, they do not intercept them. It is your responsibility to protect yourself at least until the police can arrive. If you are not willing to protect yourself with deadly force, well, enjoy being a victim of assault/theft/murder.
We would need police forces that outnumbered the US armed forces many times over to have these magical response times that would prevent criminals from harming you before the police arrived.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 01:25:25
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Albatross wrote: With that being said, I don't think particularly many Brits, especially if they lived in a rural area, would find particularly strange the concept of owning a rifle or a shotgun as they have legitimate hunting purposes (and believe it or not, we have that here), and consequently there are Brits who do just that.
But why is shooting recycled paper targets with a rifle legitimate entertainment, while shooting those same recycled paper targets with a pistol dangerous paranoia and violence?
Stop.
Because we have grown up in a fire arm culture.
Also deer hunting
duck hunting
turkey hunting
elk hunting
moose hunting
ram hunting
Pheasant hunting (almost typed peasant hunting)
boar hunting
bison hunting
bear hunting
...........
we do a lot of damn hunting here. Granted I own fire arms that I am familiar with but I own just to OWN and for peace of mind for the "Oh Hell" moments. Though I shoot more often on the range now then I did when I was active duty since its more fun plinking targets and swapping tales with other shooters.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Hoo boy. Well, I read through this thread but skimmed the last few pages as I wanted to reply to a few points.
First of all, man, that is a terrible thing to happen, that a toddler kills their parent.
Second, on gun control and Europe vs America. When I first started posting here, I was pretty ignorant about US gun laws and gun culture. I posted some pretty stupid and arrogant stuff, and I got called out on it.
Some of the most educational conversations I had on Dakka Dakka were about that. Now I think I have a greater understanding of the laws, and you know what, I don't think they are that crazy. I also think many EU posters are a bit pie in the sky when they talk about gun law reform. This is unrealistic because there are simply so many guns in the US, it is much harder to control.
Some of the arguments about reasons for having guns are a bit silly to me (like, America has the most awesome military in history, and I mean awesome in all senses of the word, how in the hell are an armed militia supposed to compete?! A militia can overthrow the government in places where military power is weak- we could probably do it in Ireland because our military is a joke. But the US? It's just laughable!) But I guess that doesn't really matter- it's a huge part of the culture. Just because another culture does something I don't understand, it doesn't mean they have to stop. Even if it is harmful. Look at the EU- France has a really high consumption of wine, and it therefore has a very high rate of death from liver disease. I don't see anyone yelling at the french about the need for wine control.
The US can make it's own decisions about that. Most of us are happy with the conditions in our own cultures.
So I think many EU posters need to tone down the rhetoric and listen a bit more to the US guys about this (and lots of other things- listening is important).
At the same time though, don't talk about disrespect like it's a one way street when you talk about "a country that raises terrorists" or diss Europe for needing to be "saved" in WW2 or being "afraid of getting it's hands dirty". That's pretty hypocritical.
Also, edited to add: Police in Ireland are unarmed in the vast majority, and they do not have vans full of guns that they can use whenever they want. There are strong arguments that the police need guns to operate due to the changing nature of crime, however I hope they remain unarmed as it helps them to remain part of the communities they serve.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 01:30:39
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The police simply cannot protect you in most situations, even if they were actually required to(and they aren't)
The Police respond to threats, they do not intercept them. It is your responsibility to protect yourself at least until the police can arrive. If you are not willing to protect yourself with deadly force, well, enjoy being a victim of assault/theft/murder.
We would need police forces that outnumbered the US armed forces many times over to have these magical response times that would prevent criminals from harming you before the police arrived.
Physical and mental harm
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The police simply cannot protect you in most situations, even if they were actually required to(and they aren't)
The Police respond to threats, they do not intercept them. It is your responsibility to protect yourself at least until the police can arrive. If you are not willing to protect yourself with deadly force, well, enjoy being a victim of assault/theft/murder.
We would need police forces that outnumbered the US armed forces many times over to have these magical response times that would prevent criminals from harming you before the police arrived.
Physical and mental harm
Care to clarify?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: This context shows that the Founders not only intended, but also assumed, that the population would/should be armed. And not only armed, but also at least on par with the military. If they could have seen the future they probably would have added some extra buffers to stop any weapon ownership restrictions. They would be horrified at the restrictions currently in place.
This is assuming a lot about their inability to adapt to the modern world. If nothing else I think they would have been able to understand the vast difference in potential for accidental damage and deaths between a 1700s-era military and a modern one. For example, owning a cannon (if you could afford one) might not have been so unreasonable in the 1700s if you had a ship to protect and plenty of empty land to shoot it on. But you'd have to be insane to think that private citizens should be allowed to own modern artillery without restrictions. Hardly anyone is even remotely qualified to operate it safely, and even fewer have enough empty land to use for an artillery range. Same thing with military aircraft. There's a very good reason that the FAA imposes strict licensing requirements on flying old military aircraft*, if you assume that everyone has a right to own a fighter jet it would be a massacre.
*High minimum flight hours requirement, training on that specific aircraft from an FAA-approved instructor, no flying over populated areas, etc.
The only good thing about the situation we are in is that you can overthrow the government even if there is a equipment gap(as evidenced by insurgent forces we've been fighting for the last 2 decades. American resistance fighters would make the terrorists look like noobs)
And here's the key problem with this argument: those insurgent forces of the past two decades are only winning because the US has very little stake in their country, other than a stubborn refusal to accept that the war was a mistake, and is not willing to resort to blatantly unethical methods to end the resistance (for example, kill everyone and replace them with US settlers). The same is not going to apply to a domestic rebellion. The government is not going to have the same ability to say "well, we're tired of this, let's go home" once the war becomes a bit inconvenient, and if the government ever reaches a point where violent rebellion is justified I doubt they're going to be concerned with things like minimizing civilian casualties when they bomb a whole town off the map.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
And here's the key problem with this argument: those insurgent forces of the past two decades are only winning because the US has very little stake in their country, other than a stubborn refusal to accept that the war was a mistake, and is not willing to resort to blatantly unethical methods to end the resistance (for example, kill everyone and replace them with US settlers). The same is not going to apply to a domestic rebellion. The government is not going to have the same ability to say "well, we're tired of this, let's go home" once the war becomes a bit inconvenient, and if the government ever reaches a point where violent rebellion is justified I doubt they're going to be concerned with things like minimizing civilian casualties when they bomb a whole town off the map.
Not really.
Not even the most callous government would exterminate its own citizens in large numbers to stop a rebellion. It would only build sympathy elsewhere in the country at a rapid rate.
There is also not much point to destroying your own citizens, it leaves you without a country to rule.
Its far easier to do that to people who aren't your own citizens.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Not even the most callous government would exterminate its own citizens in large numbers to stop a rebellion.
But the premise of a violent rebellion is that there aren't large numbers of citizens to kill. If the rebellion has such widespread support that exterminating it wouldn't be practical then how exactly is this intolerably evil government still in power? Where are the elections? Where are the non-violent refusals to obey the government? Why hasn't the military removed them from power? The only way to answer those questions in a way that leads to violent rebellion is if you assume that most people like things exactly they way they are and support the government.
Its far easier to do that to people who aren't your own citizens.
Which, conveniently, is why the first step in genocide is stripping the enemy of their citizenship and making them a second-class group that is barely considered human. Your hypothetical rebellion isn't going to come from the noble leaders of society, it's going to come from an oppressed minority that everyone already hates and the government will be praised for their slaughter.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Grey Templar wrote: Home defense wasn't the point of the 2nd, nor is hunting. That's because the right to defend yourself and feed yourself is one of those basic human rights. It would never have crossed their minds that there would be restrictions on that.
Exactly.
A lot of people seem to have trouble comprehending this. The 2nd amendment actually grants zero rights. What it does do is recognize that keeping and bearing arms is the right of any citizen and subsequently places restrictions upon the government from passing laws that infringe on a citizen's right to do so.
The federal government may seek to repeal the 2nd at some point, but even if they succeed, they won't be repealing anyone's right to keep and bear arms because that is not granted by the 2nd, rather it is regarded as inherent to us as human beings.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/03 02:00:19
Grey Templar wrote: Not even the most callous government would exterminate its own citizens in large numbers to stop a rebellion.
But the premise of a violent rebellion is that there aren't large numbers of citizens to kill. If the rebellion has such widespread support that exterminating it wouldn't be practical then how exactly is this intolerably evil government still in power? Where are the elections? Where are the non-violent refusals to obey the government? Why hasn't the military removed them from power? The only way to answer those questions in a way that leads to violent rebellion is if you assume that most people like things exactly they way they are and support the government.
Plenty of dictatorships have risen without the support of the majority.
The Nazis were a great example.
I would guarantee that if they had started blowing up entire towns and exterminating the Jews in the streets that civil opposition would have cropped up real quick. It only didn't because they kept the true nature of what they were doing in the Concentration camps under wraps. Most Germans had no idea what was going on.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Home defense wasn't the point of the 2nd, nor is hunting. That's because the right to defend yourself and feed yours not a fundamental right. It's a right granted to us by the US Consitution. Your assertions here condemns every nation that does not provide the same recognition our 2nd amendmeself is one of those basic human rights. It would never have crossed their minds that there would be restrictions on that.
Exactly.
A lot of people seem to have trouble comprehending this. The 2nd amendment actually grants zero rights. What it does do is recognize that keeping and bearing arms is the right of any citizen and subsequently places restrictions upon the government from passing laws that infringe on a citizen's right to do so.
The federal government may seek to repeal the 2nd at some point, but even if they succeed, they won't be repealing anyone's right to keep and bear arms because that is not granted by the 2nd, rather it is regarded as inherent to us as human beings.
The idea that right to arms and firearms in particular is some kind of fundamental human right is plainly absurd at its surface. To assert such a thing requires that all humans living in the 12th century and earlier were either having their rights violated by virtue of the gun not having yet been invented or that prior to the gun they were not yet fully human. Even more primitive weapons had some point of origin. I may as well claim have a fundamental right to Ice Cream, a Car or Sunglasses.
People have a fundamental right to life because they're born with their lives. People have a fundamental right to not be made to suffer as we're all born with the capacity for suffering. People have a fundamental right to food, water, air, and reproduction because these are all basic parts of being a living human.
Nobody crawled their mother's crotch clutching a 9mm. We have a right to guns by virtue of the 2nd amendment. Your assertion paints every nation that doesn't have those same protections as a violator of basic human rights. That's somewhere between insulting at best to... I don't even know at worst. I'm bewildered that you'd even try to frame it that way.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/01/03 02:17:49
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The police simply cannot protect you in most situations, even if they were actually required to(and they aren't)
The Police respond to threats, they do not intercept them. It is your responsibility to protect yourself at least until the police can arrive. If you are not willing to protect yourself with deadly force, well, enjoy being a victim of assault/theft/murder.
We would need police forces that outnumbered the US armed forces many times over to have these magical response times that would prevent criminals from harming you before the police arrived.
Physical and mental harm
Care to clarify?
The individual (victim) is physical harmed and mentally scared (harmed) by a criminal element. Its a lesser form of PTSD but its what called a "Significant Emotional Event."
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
The Holocaust: What the average Germans knew[edit]
Debate also continues on how much average Germans knew about the Holocaust. Recent historical work has found that the majority of Germans knew about the concentration camps and that Jews were being indiscriminately killed and persecuted in the death camps:[17]
“Hitler exterminated the Jews of Europe. But he did not do so alone. The task was so enormous, complex, time-consuming, and mentally and economically demanding that it took the best efforts of millions of Germans… All spheres of life in Germany actively participated: Businessmen, policemen, bankers, doctors, lawyers, soldiers, railroad and factory workers, chemists, pharmacists, foremen, production managers, economists, manufacturers, jewelers, diplomats, civil servants, propagandists, film makers and film stars, professors, teachers, politicians, mayors, party members, construction experts, art dealers, architects, landlords, janitors, truck drivers, clerks, industrialists, scientists, generals, and even shopkeepers—all were essential cogs in the machinery that accomplished the final solution.”[18] - Konnilyn G. Feig
In an entry in the Friedrich Kellner diary, "My Opposition", dated October 28, 1941, the German justice inspector recorded a conversation he had in Laubach with a German soldier who had witnessed a massacre in Poland.[19]
Robert Gellately, a historian at Oxford University, conducted a widely respected survey of the German media before and during the war, concluding that there was "substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in aspects of the Holocaust, and documenting that the sight of columns of slave laborers were common, and that the basics of the concentration camps, if not the extermination camps, were widely known.[20] The German scholar, Peter Longerich, in a study looking at what Germans knew about the mass murders concluded that: "General information concerning the mass murder of Jews was widespread in the German population."[21]
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Grey Templar wrote: Plenty of dictatorships have risen without the support of the majority.
But have those dictatorships reached the point where violent revolution is justified? Remember that the hypothetical situation where the 2nd amendment protects you from the government doesn't just involve a government that you disagree with, there needs to be a government that has become so thoroughly evil that it's ok to start killing people to oppose it.
I would guarantee that if they had started blowing up entire towns and exterminating the Jews in the streets that civil opposition would have cropped up real quick. It only didn't because they kept the true nature of what they were doing in the Concentration camps under wraps. Most Germans had no idea what was going on.
The average German might not have known all of the precise details of the death camps, but the Nazi policies in general had plenty of support. And they're hardly the only example of the average person standing by and doing nothing. For example, the average person in the 1950s US south might not have personally participated in lynchings, but they certainly didn't do anything to stand in the way or dispute that the victim deserved punishment (even if murder was a little too far).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 02:48:06
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Also worth mentioning that the second time hitler made his play for power, he did so legally. Same thing happened in egypt with the recent coup (the word probably isn't the best one). If mohamed morsi hadn't done things so quickly and bluntly he might still be chief dictator of egypt.
Grey Templar wrote: Home defense wasn't the point of the 2nd, nor is hunting. That's because the right to defend yourself and feed yours not a fundamental right. It's a right granted to us by the US Consitution. Your assertions here condemns every nation that does not provide the same recognition our 2nd amendmeself is one of those basic human rights. It would never have crossed their minds that there would be restrictions on that.
Exactly.
A lot of people seem to have trouble comprehending this. The 2nd amendment actually grants zero rights. What it does do is recognize that keeping and bearing arms is the right of any citizen and subsequently places restrictions upon the government from passing laws that infringe on a citizen's right to do so.
The federal government may seek to repeal the 2nd at some point, but even if they succeed, they won't be repealing anyone's right to keep and bear arms because that is not granted by the 2nd, rather it is regarded as inherent to us as human beings.
The idea that right to arms and firearms in particular is some kind of fundamental human right is plainly absurd at its surface. To assert such a thing requires that all humans living in the 12th century and earlier were either having their rights violated by virtue of the gun not having yet been invented or that prior to the gun they were not yet fully human. Even more primitive weapons had some point of origin. I may as well claim have a fundamental right to Ice Cream, a Car or Sunglasses.
People have a fundamental right to life because they're born with their lives. People have a fundamental right to not be made to suffer as we're all born with the capacity for suffering. People have a fundamental right to food, water, air, and reproduction because these are all basic parts of being a living human.
Nobody crawled their mother's crotch clutching a 9mm. We have a right to guns by virtue of the 2nd amendment. Your assertion paints every nation that doesn't have those same protections as a violator of basic human rights. That's somewhere between insulting at best to... I don't even know at worst. I'm bewildered that you'd even try to frame it that way.
Not firearms specifically, but the ability to effectively defend yourself against an aggressor.
A spear or a bow back in the middle ages or earlier was perfectly sufficient. Today, its not. But a hand gun, shotgun, or any other type of firearm is.
To effectively defend myself against an aggressor, be that a corrupt government or a violent intruder, I currently need firearms. That inalienable right is clarified and codified by the 2nd amendment, but its unquestionably a right everyone deserves.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
This context shows that the Founders not only intended, but also assumed, that the population would/should be armed. And not only armed, but also at least on par with the military. If they could have seen the future they probably would have added some extra buffers to stop any weapon ownership restrictions. They would be horrified at the restrictions currently in place. The only good thing about the situation we are in is that you can overthrow the government even if there is a equipment gap(as evidenced by insurgent forces we've been fighting for the last 2 decades. American resistance fighters would make the terrorists look like noobs)
The Founders, The Founders, The Founders. Jeez Louise I'll never understand this obsession with The Founders.. I swear listening to some people is like watching an episode of DS9. Why the hell should anyone give a crap would the founders would think about anything in today's society? They'd incapable of even comprehending the modern world, much less forming anything resembling relevant opinion about it. They'd be horrified about a lot of things, like that women can vote... and I'm not somebody's personal property.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 06:13:02
This context shows that the Founders not only intended, but also assumed, that the population would/should be armed. And not only armed, but also at least on par with the military. If they could have seen the future they probably would have added some extra buffers to stop any weapon ownership restrictions. They would be horrified at the restrictions currently in place. The only good thing about the situation we are in is that you can overthrow the government even if there is a equipment gap(as evidenced by insurgent forces we've been fighting for the last 2 decades. American resistance fighters would make the terrorists look like noobs)
The Founders, The Founders, The Founders. Jeez Louise I'll never understand this obsession with The Founders.. I swear listening to some people is like watching an episode of DS9. Why the hell should anyone give a crap would the founders would think about anything in today's society? They'd incapable of even comprehending the modern world, much less forming anything resembling relevant opinion about it. They'd be horrified about a lot of things, like that women can vote... and I'm not somebody's personal property.
Because they wrote the damn Constitution, thus their PoV should be used to interpret what the original document and amendments meant. Obviously changes to the document would use whatever the new context is, but any of the original amendments should certainly use their PoV.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I think you might be selling the founders a little short. If they were alive today they'd comprehend it just as well as anyone else.
For me, a lot of it comes down to the fact that I believe the right to self-defense is a basic human right, and as such a free, law-abiding citizen should be allowed to own a weapon if he wishes. I am suspicious of any government or government official who would move to restrict that right, especially in the US.
Europeans don't want to have weapons, and that's cool for them. Most of them are comfortable with that and don't face all of the same issues that we do in the US that make owning a weapon a more attractive option for some people than simply relying on the police to protect you. When I was living in Europe I didn't feel the need to own or carry a weapon either. In the US, my feelings are different. Having experienced both sides of the coin, I have little patience for Europeans trying to tell me my life in the US would be better if I wasn't able to own a gun. I'm quite able to make that decision for myself.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit the existence of one. It does allow for a federal army, army in this case meaning any armed forces.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit the existence of one. It does allow for a federal army, army in this case meaning any armed forces.
No, Army means Army.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
If Armies means "any armed forces" then why does it list Navy as a separate branch of the armed forces if it is already included under Army?
The Army Air Corps was still part of the Army, so it was kosher. But now we have entire branches of the Armed Forces that are not mentioned in the Constitution at all. At least the Marines are somewhat/kinda/sorta/maybe part of the Navy . But there is zero mention of an Air Force or any other flying planes in that document!
Edit: Of course this whole discussion is just to point out that the Constitution is a living breathing document and we can't be stuck with "that's what Founders thought back then and that's that". Pretending that we know what the Founders would have decided if they wrote the thing with all the knowledge that we have today and that it would be exactly the same is a bit silly.
The foundation would still be very similar, but I would imagine that there would also be some major differences.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 06:42:34
But why is shooting recycled paper targets with a rifle legitimate entertainment, while shooting those same recycled paper targets with a pistol dangerous paranoia and violence?
Stop.
Because we have grown up in a fire arm culture.
Also deer hunting
duck hunting
turkey hunting
elk hunting
moose hunting
ram hunting
Pheasant hunting (almost typed peasant hunting)
boar hunting
bison hunting
bear hunting
...........
we do a lot of damn hunting here. Granted I own fire arms that I am familiar with but I own just to OWN and for peace of mind for the "Oh Hell" moments. Though I shoot more often on the range now then I did when I was active duty since its more fun plinking targets and swapping tales with other shooters.
We do all that hunting and more in Canada with Handguns being rare and AR15s being illegal
But why is shooting recycled paper targets with a rifle legitimate entertainment, while shooting those same recycled paper targets with a pistol dangerous paranoia and violence?
Stop.
Because we have grown up in a fire arm culture.
Also deer hunting
duck hunting
turkey hunting
elk hunting
moose hunting
ram hunting
Pheasant hunting (almost typed peasant hunting)
boar hunting
bison hunting
bear hunting
...........
we do a lot of damn hunting here. Granted I own fire arms that I am familiar with but I own just to OWN and for peace of mind for the "Oh Hell" moments. Though I shoot more often on the range now then I did when I was active duty since its more fun plinking targets and swapping tales with other shooters.
We do all that hunting and more in Canada with Handguns being rare and AR15s being illegal
That's your Country laws and regulation hence I will not travel to Canada with my personnel fire arms. Since I own multiple fire arms I must be a very bad person on some people perception. Hell I am even evil for teaching Boy Scouts fire arm safety and Marksmanship
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
What's even more amazing is that according to the victim the gun was unloaded! That dog must be absolute dynamite, being able to load a pistol without any thumbs!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 07:03:41
. But there is zero mention of an Air Force or any other flying planes in that document!
