A History Lesson

Nordic Viking said:
Bill,

I believe even the Australian statistics are propaganda i.e.one year 4 people could have been murdered and the next year 16 murdered and the next year 12 murdered. That's an increase of 300% in year one, hardly the holocaust or genocide the author is trying to conjure images of.


IMO, the key to freedom is education and an accountable government.
Click to expand...

Well,

At least two good points again.
 
alberich said:
What, exactly, do you have against weapons?
Click to expand...

I don't have anything against weapons, I do however dislike people peeing on my back and telling me it's raining.
 
There was an arms embargo in Bosnia insisted upon by Nato allies, England one of them. This left the Moslem groups without arms. The 'Christian" groups, and I use the word loosely, as those formerly in power had access to arms and munitions already. The embargo effectively allowed massacres. Yes, it would have been UN peacekeepers preventing arms from coming in. That is different than taking them- though if you're unarmed and murdered in the street the distinction amounts to coffeehouse philosophy. The UN did confiscate arms, though it may or may not have been in the house to house manner.

Nordic Viking, are you the poster formerly known as Eikverang?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


munk
 
Forgive the huge post. It's a big topic, and I don't know how to cut it down.

First, while I don’t own any guns now, I have in the past. I can easily see a time when I’d again own a hunting rifle or two, and a couple of shotguns. A friend does blackpowder shooting, and I’d love to get involved in that – it’s sheer artistry. Guns are tools, designed to kill something. Different designs are optimized for this or that target or situation; more or less specialized in what they best do. Not too different in that respect from my 4 or 5 different hammers …

I tend to agree with the philosophers Hobbes and Rousseau (whose thinking, incidentally, is implicit in the US Constitution) that even the most capable solitary warrior needs to sleep at some point, and can get thumped on the head if nobody’s watching out for him. Hobbes famously said that in true anarchy, life is “nasty, brutish, and short.” And said that we formed states primarily to eliminate that threat. We accept some loss of personal freedom in return for a less anxious night’s sleep.

So the first and most important responsibility of government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens – from threats inside and outside the state’s borders. And the traditional way to do that is, with very few exceptions, reserve the legitimate use of human-focused deadly force to the government itself. Use police, rather than vigilante justice. Use the Armed Forces to do international defense, rather than ad hoc militias responsible only to themselves. That was Hobbes' and Rousseau's Social Contract.

As a result, where the social contract is working as it’s supposed to, I’d argue that there’s precious little need for a wide dispersal of firearms which are optimized for killing people, rather than animal prey. I might want a gun optimized to shoot a deer, a shotgun optimized to take upland birds. Both can keep me safe from feral humans too – but in a functional state, I don’t need something concealable or capable of automatic fire.

I readily accept that in some places, citizens need to arm themselves to stay safe from predatory humans. I think that’s rational – if I lived in such a place, I’d probably arm myself too. But that would be evidence of a dramatic failure in the nation itself. The social contract had been ripped up. That’s been so in Ruanda, Ethiopia, Angola, Afghanistan etc., but not in North America, in our lifetimes.

And if there are parts of our home countries where citizens need to arm themselves against human threats, that’s a national security crisis. We need to spend as much or more to eliminate THAT threat as we do to counter national security threats from OUTSIDE our countries’ borders.
 
Nordic Viking said:
I don't have anything against weapons, I do however dislike people peeing on my back and telling me it's raining.
Click to expand...


ROTFLMAO!!!!


I am keeping my guns, also. I realize that I would have no chance in a shoot-out against any organized military or police agency. I would not be so foolish as to even try. I do not believe they are as terrible marksmen, nor as terrible drivers as depicted on TV.

I also know that I would have no defense against a sniper, nor an intellligent hitman.

I am, however concered about one-on-one situations. I also believe that petty criminals and thugs are less inclinde to attack, or burglarize, possibly armed citizens.

I have two placards on my gate.

One shows a Rotteweiler and has the caption "I can make it to the gate in 2.8 seconds, can you?"

The other shows a revolver pointed outward and says, "Never mind the dog, Beware of owner!"

Would I shoot someone I felt was a menace to my family or me? Would I do my best to kill them?

Oh, yeah.

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1896


04/27/06 - Senate Date Signed by Governor

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse as a defense to certain crimes, so as to provide that a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat; to provide that such person has a right to meet force with force, including deadly force; to provide for an immunity from prosecution; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.


"Every thing they say we are, we are! And we are very proud of ourselves!"
---------------------------------- Jefferson Airplane
 
Nordic Viking said:
Are you calling me yellow?
Click to expand...

I was merely suggesting that you could lighten up your approach . If you found something offensive in my joke I apologise for your misconstruction . Sometimes different cultures have different sensitivities . I am Irish we are also known to take offense quickly and to forget about it just as quickly .
 
Kevin the grey said:
I was merely suggesting that you could lighten up your approach . If you found something offensive in my joke I apologise for your misconstruction . Sometimes different cultures have different sensitivities . I am Irish we are also known to take offense quickly and to forget about it just as quickly .
Click to expand...

LOL,

I was joking back at you (peeing on my back = yellow) :D
 
Nordic Viking said:
LOL,

I was joking back at you (peeing on my back = yellow) :D
Click to expand...

It is a line from one of my favourite movies "The Outlaw Josey Wales"

I am a staunch supporter of an armed citizenry . It is the main difference between a citizen and a subject .
 
I tend to agree with the philosophers Hobbes and Rousseau (whose thinking, incidentally, is implicit in the US Constitution) that even the most capable solitary warrior needs to sleep at some point, and can get thumped on the head if nobody’s watching out for him. Hobbes famously said that in true anarchy, life is “nasty, brutish, and short.” And said that we formed states primarily to eliminate that threat. We accept some loss of personal freedom in return for a less anxious night’s sleep.

So the first and most important responsibility of government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens – from threats inside and outside the state’s borders. And the traditional way to do that is, with very few exceptions, reserve the legitimate use of human-focused deadly force to the government itself. Use police, rather than vigilante justice. Use the Armed Forces to do international defense, rather than ad hoc militias responsible only to themselves. That was Hobbes' and Rousseau's Social Contract.
Click to expand...

There is a lot here I disagree with.

Thankfully, we live under the US Cobstitution, not Hobbes or Rousseau.

I would prefer the RIGHT way, as opposed to the TRADITIONAL way!

I would dispute that the first responsibility of Governments is the safety and security of its citizens. A source higher than the above mentioned gentlemen, the Holy Spirit, via the Apostle Paul, said that governments exist to punish evildoers. The fear of that punishment should, but does not always, act as a restraint against evil behavior.

The US supreme court has ruled that police do not have a responsibilty to protect individual citizens. That responsibility then must necessarily fall to the individual. To then deprive responsible individuals of reasonable means of self protection is a morally reprehensible act, even if enacted by politicians who may be misguided.

The 6th commandment, forbidding murder, also implies the duty to protect and preserve innocent life. I would argue that also implicit in that duty is the duty to have, and know how to use, the means to defend oneself, and especially others.

Even though restrictive gun control may not be CAUSATIVE with respect to the massacres cited, it is certainly relevant to the subject.

I would rather that the Tutsi in Rwanda had been armed with rifles, shotguns, and handguns, so they could have shot a lot of the machete wielding Hutus. I imagine the total deaths would have been greatly reduced. Most evil men are moral cowards, and like to pick on easy targets. Even if the death toll was no less however, that does not change the moral question. If 200,000 Hutus had died, along with 200,000 Tutsis, that would be preferable to 400,000 defenseless Tutsis being helplessly slaughtered. There is NOT a moral equivalency between the two groups!

Depriving people of the means to defend themselves, prior to their demonstrating their unfitness to bear such means responsibly, is prior restraint, and is a great moral evil, on an absolute basis.

I thank Tom Fetter for his thoughtful post, and for citing the sources of his undertanding, his "authorities", if you will.

I have cited mine.

If you disagree with the Bible, and the US Constituion, please cite your authorities, your reasons for doing so.

While everone has the right to their opinion, rule by mass tabulation of public opinion is not a moral rule. It is totally subjective. In such a system, there can be no lasting truth, or security, or prosperity.

"God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

J.J., my BP is up a bit too!

:D

Tom
 
You are hanging around the wrong bathrooms . L:O:L Kevin


Are you calling me yellow? Nordic Viking


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Very funny,


>>>>

"And if there are parts of our home countries where citizens need to arm themselves against human threats, that’s a national security crisis. We need to spend as much or more to eliminate THAT threat as we do to counter national security threats from OUTSIDE our countries’ borders." Tom Fetter

Hey Tom:
US courts have established the police have no responsiblilty to protect the individual. To do so would establish a crushing economic burden on the them.

There are always going to be places and times where citizens need to arm themselves against human threats. Like right now while I'm here at home, and tomorow when I'm in the car, and..........


munk
 
Well Tom, I also thank you for your thoughtful post. I think it says something when folks can disagree, doing so amicably. It's helpful, and an indication of the respect that we usually find here at HI that neither you nor I have seen the need to make a straw man out of the other guy's view.

I read the 6th commandment a bit differently, but I agree 100% on what you've said about Ruanda. I'm frankly shocked if the US Supreme Court has said that the police do not have a responsibility to protect individual citizens ... I'd hope that the decision said something about balancing off the obligations to protect threatened individuals vs. obligations to protect threatened groups, or something. In any case, I agree that the individual's need to self-protection remains, when the state abdicates.

I just also think that if the state consistently is NOT fulfilling its duty, delegating the protection from lethal harm to the individual ... that it says something rather enormous about the health of the state.

Hope your B.P. goes down a bit ...

t.
 
Nordic Viking said:
I don't have anything against weapons, I do however dislike people peeing on my back and telling me it's raining.
Click to expand...

As the nurse said to the 10 year-old girl when she was giving her a shot "You're going to feel a small prick. Get used to it."

I don't have anything against weapons BUT there are caviats:
I want the laws against who can have weapons enforced:
* Convicts.
* The Insane.

On one hand I'd like to add fools, but that would be so difficult to enforce and one would have to make it post-hoc.
 
TomFetter said:
So the first and most important responsibility of government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens – from threats inside and outside the state’s borders. And the traditional way to do that is, with very few exceptions, reserve the legitimate use of human-focused deadly force to the government itself. Use police, rather than vigilante justice. Use the Armed Forces to do international defense, rather than ad hoc militias responsible only to themselves. That was Hobbes' and Rousseau's Social Contract.

As a result, where the social contract is working as it’s supposed to, I’d argue that there’s precious little need for a wide dispersal of firearms which are optimized for killing people, rather than animal prey. I might want a gun optimized to shoot a deer, a shotgun optimized to take upland birds. Both can keep me safe from feral humans too – but in a functional state, I don’t need something concealable or capable of automatic fire.
Click to expand...
A social contract is just that, a piece of paper, or a theory laying out how people will deal, act, and react with one another. It shows the responsibilities, and their reverse from one to another. However you make a couple of assumptions.

1) You speak of defense, if I may put it this way, you speak of domestic defense. Defense against criminals, defense against those that aren't acting out of respect for a social contract, but in defiance of it. I don't know where many of you live, I'm in Louisville KY, but we rarely have a policeman within shouting distance, therefore there are times one has to act for himself. Last time I looked the police were basically bound by the same laws regarding use of deadly force that I am. I am legally restrained from using deadly force unless I am fear for my life or of serious harm. They (police) are required to use appropriate levels of force to the situtation. An officer can not shoot me if I refuse to identify myself. He may detain me, he may arrest me, but unless I escalate the situation that is all he may do. As a citizen I have rights too. Last night at my employers store I observed a man leaving without paying for his purchases, I went out after him. To make a long story short I regained the merchandise, the creep got away. I got the merchandise back because the creep didn't want to get caught with a felony amount of stolen merchandise, so he ditched it to get away faster. Could I have detained him if I caught him? Yep, done it before, will likely do it again, assuming I had enough sand in my shorts. Is it reasonable for me to regain my property or that of my employer?

See the social contract has allowances for when official authority figures aren't present. If someone breaks into my house do I have to allow the person to steal anything he wants while I wait patiently in my boxers and fuzzy bear slippers for a police man to show up? If I'm down by Wayside mission and some guy wants to roll me do I have to give him what he wants or can I discuss it with him?

2) I don't think that the first reponsibility of government is it's people anymore, I believe that it's become large and power enough that it's developed it's own need for self preservation. If you could summon up a gestalt of government, it's prime directive (I love that pair of words) would be self preservation. That is scary. In fact if you even look at oaths of office I doubt that has ever really been the case. Atticus Finchs are rare in this world.

3) As for weapons, they are tools. Some are designed for target practice, Some are for games, some are for killing animals, and others for killing other humans. I don't know if "need" should enter into the discussion. Do I need a Cobra Mustang on highways limited to 65 miles an hour? Do I need the Jeep Cherokee in my driveway that can climb over curbs, tear up lawns, and go places where the government hasn't built a road? Do I need an 18 inch carbon steel razor sharp decapitation Kukri? Do I need to be able to purchase liquids which distort my sense of reality, cause problems with depth perception, and screw with one's sense of the appropriate? Do I need to vote to indirectly determine my, and my families future?

Should I be able to do so if I am of legal age, reasonably sane, and not shown to be a violator of a social contract? I know that we have some lawyers floating around here, seems like that one word is the root of the whole shooting match "reasonable"

TomFetter said:
I readily accept that in some places, citizens need to arm themselves to stay safe from predatory humans. I think that’s rational – if I lived in such a place, I’d probably arm myself too. But that would be evidence of a dramatic failure in the nation itself. The social contract had been ripped up. That’s been so in Ruanda, Ethiopia, Angola, Afghanistan etc., but not in North America, in our lifetimes.

And if there are parts of our home countries where citizens need to arm themselves against human threats, that’s a national security crisis. We need to spend as much or more to eliminate THAT threat as we do to counter national security threats from OUTSIDE our countries’ borders.
Click to expand...
In my sig are a couple of links, the newest one is about why one person practices and does what he can to be able to defend himself and his own; love. Would I be a better man to watch tutu's killing my wife and child and be unable to defend them than if I attempted it? Would I be a better man to ride an airplane into a skyscraper or to sit in my seat and die anyway? Would I be a better man to sit on the porch of a jail and speak to the crowd, or to be at home wishing I couldn't hear the noise. "No man has greater love..." and I doubt that any of us would disagree.

Perhaps you are right, we should spend more to insure our own domestic tranquility (two more words I love when used togeather, they just flow...) But the larger a government becomes the more chilling of an effect it seems to have upon it's citizens. When we talk of increasing the levels of police in an area we seem to have a quiet moment, NIMBY? I was told by the LT that part times with my employer that often the metro Government has more slots for police officers than they have suitable applicants.

We spend money for computer programs to search emails to see if there are probable reasons to suspect someone is up to something wrong and both the left and right get upset.

We find out government agencies aren't following the rules (ATF withholding and storing information from 4412 that they are forbidden to do) and we get upset.

Face it, our government is better at punishing someone (nope, already had it down gravertom) once they have broken the law, and then attempting to prevent them from being able to more effectively break laws in the future than we are at preventing them. In my example above, if you observed a customer walking around with over $400 worth of steaks, beer and hats in a bascart would you think it was reasonable to assume they were going to be stolen? If that was you, and you had $500 in your wallet, would you think it was reasonable for you to be stopped on your way to the checklane? I don't think so.

I got pulled over Monday while I was on a shopping spree for work, I was asked for my ID, insurance card, and registration. The tax paid sticker had come off my plate (I'm blaming it on kids). Was it reasonable for him to pull me over to see if I had paid the appropriate taxes? I suppose so. Was it reasonable for him to request my ID? I don't think so, but the law states that he can, and I see no reason to have a big beef with that one. Was it reasonable for him to write me a warning ticket because I was displaying an expired tax sticker? We'll that upset me, but he had his job to do, as do I.

Seems like part of that social contract was something about being secure in one's papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. I think that was the now gutted fourth amendment... . I wonder if that is the test for the 2nd as well? Would it be reasonable for a citizen, trained to the state's standards for concealed carry, to own a pistol? A shotgun? A semi auto rifle? A full auto rifle? A mortar? I crew served machinegun? An artillery piece? A tank? Chemical weapons? A bomber?

I think your defination of reasonable and mine aren't going to match. I see gravertom has replied already as well. And we seem to have hit similar points.

Have a great day.
 
munk said:
...There are always going to be places and times where citizens need to arm themselves against human threats. Like right now while I'm here at home, and tomorow when I'm in the car, and..........


munk
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
And here I am, out and about without even my SAK.:D You know, I'm very lucky that I don't live where there is any significant threat of violence to me or my family. There is some small-time crime in my small city, but virtually any violence i's mostly confined to folks playing in the drug trade. There were only half a dozen murders over the past few years, and all but 2 of them were domestic disputes.

So in my city and region, the social contract appears to still be operating. The only things that need to fear my khuks are trees; the only use I'd have for firearms is hunting (and practice for it).

Obviously, other people's mileage varies - but even in Canada's major cities, violent crime follows pretty much the pattern of my town. There are exceptions to the rule, but most violence is still among spouses, or among rival criminal elements. Most of us do not have to face armed criminals.

If I lived where I had a reasonable likelihood of having to confront an armed criminal, I might arm myself against him. As it is, all that would need to fear my armed threat would be in-season wildlife, and paper targets.

t.
 
TomFetter said:
And if there are parts of our home countries where citizens need to arm themselves against human threats, that’s a national security crisis. We need to spend as much or more to eliminate THAT threat as we do to counter national security threats from OUTSIDE our countries’ borders.
Click to expand...


I sure did not want to re-enter this thread............. I wanted to prevent my ears from turning red again........ but................. TOO LATE!........... LOL! ;)


I was doing a good job of staying away, but then I just had to read TomFetter's post,................... causing my ears to turn to a red glow again............ LOL! ;)

TomFetter is probably a nice guy, but I found much of his post to be what represents the Naive thinking that many Americans have towards guns and gun ownership in America.

The section above where I quoted Tom is so ridiculous, and yet, it's soooooooo common, that it's very frustrating.

Okay.......... let's just throw more tax dollars at the problem of crime. Throw enough money and law enforcement power at it, and the crime will magically disappear, or at least pretty much dwindle to a trickle.

Nope,................ "I'm" not so naive.

There will always be people that will intentionally do harm to others. It may be brought on by their upbringing, their mental illnesses, their desperation caused by poverty, their simply having evil non caring ways, or whatever, but they will be out there nonetheless.

Maybe in a non free society where all homes and property are checked on a regular basis by government law enforcement units. A society where one can be stopped anywhere, at any time, to be searched by police. Where ones mental and phyiscal health records are routinely checked out by law enforcement agencies. A place where all must clock in and out at certain locations throughout the day to keep constant records of when and where you go. Where this and more are a reality, maybe then crime would be lessened considerably, but that is not where I want to live.

Even then, it would never stop all from comiting their crimes. You could still find yourself in a situation where the cops are too far away, un-accessible, or whatever, and the firearm could be the tool that can save you and your family lives.

It's hard to try to rationalize with folks that think that we as humans have evolved so much, that we civilians no longer should have access to firearms because we have the police/government to do that for us, ("just call the cops" mentallity). That no longer, in our 21st Century world, would it be possible that the people running our Government could ever run totally afoul. Hitler's Germany was a thing of the past, it could never happen in our civilized Nation. That we are so powerful, and will always be, that we could never ever be invaded by outside forces on our own homeland. That we would never have to actually try and help out in defending against such a foreign invasion. People that think that only the elite and government should be allowed to own guns. That the average law abiding citizen should not be allowed this right.

Yup, enough to make one's ears glow red!....................... ;)
 
TomFetter said:
:thumbup:
And here I am, out and about without even my SAK.:D You know, I'm very lucky that I don't live where there is any significant threat of violence to me or my family.

So in my city and region, the social contract appears to still be operating. The only things that need to fear my khuks are trees; the only use I'd have for firearms is hunting (and practice for it).

Obviously, other people's mileage varies - but even in Canada's major cities, violent crime follows pretty much the pattern of my town. There are exceptions to the rule, but most violence is still among spouses, or among rival criminal elements. Most of us do not have to face armed criminals.


t.
Click to expand...

I for one, hope that it continues to be that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top