New Second Amendment Case

[Sutcliffe]

A state that has been reduced to banning pellet guns, swords, and knives from the hands of the law abiding. That merely emboldens criminals to 'up' their level of aggression. Meahwhile, crime continues to soar and guns are still be taken from the hands of criminals. Something that the law abiding don't have the luxury of.
To continue their ability to protect the public the Bobbies now have cameras watching the populace twenty four hours a day.

Gun Control is about control all right. Just not really about guns.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Gun Control is about control all right. Just not really about guns.

The Nanny State. It's not a policy, it's a mindset.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength​

 

[Radrunner]

Hmmm....

I must say, you make some compelling and well thought out arguments. I must say i am quite set back in my thinking.

a few thoughts however... i still don't agree with you on the idea of weapons being a preventative measure against a tyrannical government. In my mind, the potential for a tyrant to rise to power shouldn't be possible in a democracy.

I am familiure with the definition of an assault rifle and given the recent post on "battle rifle's" i think its safe to say a few american's have them in their closets.

As for Britian, i'm disagree with you. I don't think one can isolate the cause of increasing violence as a result of the banning of weapons. There are alot more factors at play - immigration, increasing population density, etc. To reduce the rise in crime rate to one variabole - decreased weaponry - is hardly a fair assessment of the situation.

And since i am Canadian, might as well bring your lovely Northern Neighbour into this

Less guns... less violence... less homicide... admitedly the gun registry the government tried was a failure and a flop. The point i am simply trying to raise is that we have a lower crime rate than the united states, and we have achieed it without the arming of the citizenry.

And as a final point on the cold war... yes, you could say it ended well... however the world was very, very, very close to nuclear war. I wasn't alive for the Cuban missle crisis, but i listed to my dad talking about it as the scariest few days of his life. Armamanet led to an arms race, that turned into a game of chicken. Thankfully someone stepped down. Similarly, countries had entered a long arms buildup before an assasination served as the spark to the powder keg.

I agree with you on the importance of protecting yourself and your family against the criminals through the deterent of potential force, however such a viewpoint seems to present a pretty dark, corrupt view of society - that no one is ever safe. I find it hard to imagine a society in which violence to onesself and their family is so likely to occur that one needs to always carry a weapon.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

The arms race did not give rise to the Cold War. Totalitarianism was a Twentieth Century phenomenon of some complexity, but it illustrates the dangers of urban-technological civilizations overwhelming the rights of the individual.

The reason I mentioned assault rifles is that it doesn't matter how you classify weapons. Any personal arms suited for use by an individual will support the citizenry in its natural opposition to authority.

World War II Part 1 was the war against fascism. WW II Pt 2 was the war against communism. The difference between fascism and communism was immaterial. The essence of both was the value of the collective, the state, taking priority over the value of the individual.

These conflicts were largely fought by intelligence, diplomacy, and economics. Spectacular as the military efflorescence may have seemed, it required each side to sustain its place in the conflict, and to recover afterwards.

Democracy is only a word, and one with a variable meaning. Sometimes it means no more than that the populace is reasonably satisfied with the general level of prosperity in the country. Not a firm foundation for future freedom.

I specifically said the disarming of the British wasn't the cause of rising violence: "This is not entirely because of a lack of personal weaponry, but does include citizen helplessness in the face of social turbulence."

Canada and the US are two very different cases. No quick answer will be accurate, but I suggest part of the answer lies in the greater US population and the wider spread of that population once the west was opened up. Social turbulence again, harder to control especially after the Civil War.

 

[Radrunner]

The arms race did not give rise to the Cold War. Totalitarianism was a Twentieth Century phenomenon of some complexity, but it illustrates the dangers of urban-technological civilizations overwhelming the rights of the individual.

Quite right, however an arms race was a by product of the cold war, and it very nearly ended very badly.

World War II Part 1 was the war against fascism. WW II Pt 2 was the war against communism.

War against communism was post WWII...

The difference between fascism and communism was immaterial. The essence of both was the value of the collective, the state, taking priority over the value of the individual.

Definetly agree with you there

These conflicts were largely fought by intelligence, diplomacy, and economics. Spectacular as the military efflorescence may have seemed, it required each side to sustain its place in the conflict, and to recover afterwards.

Assuming your talking of the cold war, quite right. However there was still an arms race in the background. Some have argued the cold war ended out of the USSR reaching the economic breaking point where it could no longer afford to build armament compared to the US. Diplomacy, economics, etc. may have been at the frontline, but there was a very real threat in the background.

Democracy ... sometimes it means no more than that the populace is reasonably satisfied with the general level of prosperity in the country. Not a firm foundation for future freedom.

Think i have to disagree with you on that. Going off a dictionary definition here, democracy is a government elected by the greater consensus of the citizens for which it represents. satisfaction and prosperity may be results of a democracy, however they are not the defining components of it. As you mentioned, there is huge variation within democracy, but the key element is the government being made up of those persons with the most support from the country. Since its not based on satisfaction and prosperity, but support, the foundation should be quite firm - no support, new government (i recognize i'm dealing with the ideal scenario here, which is never the case, but still )

I specifically said the disarming of the British wasn't the cause of rising violence: "This is not entirely because of a lack of personal weaponry, but does include citizen helplessness in the face of social turbulence."

Opps... missed that.

Canada and the US are two very different cases. No quick answer will be accurate, but I suggest part of the answer lies in the greater US population..

Quite possibly... about that population density thing i raised earlier...

and the wider spread of that population once the west was opened up. Social turbulence again, harder to control especially after the Civil War.

Wider spread of the population? Canada has a greater land mass... so what exactly do you mean by this? Social turbulence as a result of the civil war... definetly right.

Wow... this is turning into quite the discussion. Definetly wasn't expecting to find this on a knife forum, but it is definetly welcome

Returning to a much more earlier thought, and a recurrent theme you keep returning too... the idea that the citizenry has the right to defend itself from a tyrannical government... If this is the basis for bearing arms, how does it hold true in the instance when the government is not tyrannical? Is it simply a "just in case" measure?

 

[Nasty]

If this is the basis for bearing arms, how does it hold true in the instance when the government is not tyrannical? Is it simply a "just in case" measure?

Yup...deterrence in action. All governments are tyrannical...some are not so obvious, others are merely held in check.

I love my country, I fear my government.

 

[cliff355]

Yup...deterrence in action. All governments are tyrannical...some are not so obvious, others are merely held in check.

I love my country, I fear my government.

There is an additional point which seems to be under-reported in discussions such as these. Roughly one generation ago - about when my Dad was a little kid - J. Edgar Hoover went before congress and got special permission for his Agents to carry small revolvers for their personal defense during investigations. IIRC, at that time the U. S. Marshals and some members of the Secret Service were about the only Federal employees allowed to carry firearms while circulating among the public inside the United States.

There was/is a constitutional prohibition against deploying federal troops inside the U.S., and many felt that a federal employee with a gun is a "troop." There are now over ninety armed federal agencies in the U.S. Some of them wear camoflage and carry automatic weapons. I'm not saying they are "troops" or that they do not have compelling reasons to be armed. However, it is a thing to bear in mind and possibly keep an eye on.

In any case, during the course of one generation there has been an undeniable move to arm federal employees and disarm citizens. It seems to me that if domestic tranquility is the object you can have one or the other, but not both.

 

[Radrunner]

That said, if you already have citizens carrying arms, why is it so bad for federal agents to carry them in response?

Give me a time frame here... when did the right to bear arms come in. when did federal agents begin to stary carrying them?

I'm just getting a feeling that federal troops on domestic soil carrying fire arms may have been a response to the citizens already being armed. I could have this backwards, but if i'm right, you've got government agents arming in response to citizens, not for the purposes of intimidating them.

Again, all governments being tyrannical? Going to ahve to disagree with you there Nasty. Tyrrany is first off a perception. As for it being held in check, i'll agree that governments are held in check. And in any country where you fear your government, something is seriously wrong. If that is the American perception of the American government, i think you guys need a new system.

 

[Vivi]

If that is the American perception of the American government, i think you guys need a new system.

I speak only for myself, but my fear for my government isn't that they have various agencies now armed or the army they have. My fear is the gradual decline of the freedoms this country was founded on, the seemingly incoherent foreign policies we keep, outsourcing our manufacturing, politicians with greed and self-service as their highest priorities and the general apathy that permeates our populace making them notice little of this and act on none of what they do see of it.

That said, I've enjoyed the exchange between you and Esav. It's been a good discussion to watch.

 

[Nasty]

If in fact tyranny is a perception, then it is *my* perception and you cannot judge it wrong or in error.

It is my opinion that *all* governments should be feared...and checks must remain in place.

Here for example, I can be dismissed summarily and have no control over how long my authorities will last. If Yangdu or Spark or Cougar thought it best, they could flip the switch on me at any time. People need to have the same protection against governments...thus our 2nd amendment.

We *have* a new system...and thanks to the protections our forefathers built in (and others have supported since)...it's working.

 

[nwallis]

Applause for Esav! Whilst not an American, I agree entirely with what you have to say. Whilst devout enough, I am hardly learned, but the first two verses of the 144th Psalm seem clear enough to me. As far as turning the other cheek goes, I feel that this would apply more to social situations than when a drug crazed axe murderer is having at your family. Esav, keep the posts coming! You make a lot of sense.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Give me a time frame here... when did the right to bear arms come in. when did federal agents begin to stary carrying them?

[...]

If that is the American perception of the American government, i think you guys need a new system.

I don't know what else I can contribute here, short of a course in American history.

Radrunner, I cannot see how you feel qualified to suggest we might need a new system when you know so little of that history as to ask when the right to bear arms came in.

As the Second Amendment shows, it was enshrined iin our Constitution. Arguably, we showed we felt it preceded the founding of the United States of America by bearing arms against the king, and declaring the right to do so in the Declaration of Independence.

The militarization of the police is a global phenomenon and hardly a positive development. While local police are a security force, and state or Federal police can serve as coordinators and technical experts, arming and dressing the multitude of police services we now have for combat only apes the worst visions of outright tyrannies.

The Elian Gonzalez episode illustrates a style of policing against which the Second Amendment was written.

 

[Thomas Linton]

. . .
a few thoughts however... i still don't agree with you on the idea of weapons being a preventative measure against a tyrannical government. In my mind, the potential for a tyrant to rise to power shouldn't be possible in a democracy.

Hitler was elected. "Shoulda" is of little value.

I am familiure with the definition of an assault rifle and given the recent post on "battle rifle's" i think its safe to say a few american's have them in their closets.

If you know the definition, then you should know that it's very few. It takes a special license to own a fully-automatic rifle in the U.S. Now the Swiss, there is a nation with relatively lots of assault rifles in the closets.

And since i am Canadian, might as well bring your lovely Northern Neighbour into this

Less guns... less violence... less homicide... admitedly the gun registry the government tried was a failure and a flop. The point i am simply trying to raise is that we have a lower crime rate than the united states, and we have achieed it without the arming of the citizenry.

And in the U.S., more weapons = less crime. That is the result in every state that loosened the laws to allow more citizens to be armed.

Your reasoning -- that the thing drives the hand rather than the brain --is the basis for knife bans in the UK. There are now calls there for outlawing any pointed knife of any kind. Of course, the UK has no constitution.

And as a final point on the cold war... yes, you could say it ended well... however the world was very, very, very close to nuclear war. I wasn't alive for the Cuban missle crisis, but i listed to my dad talking about it as the scariest few days of his life. Armamanet led to an arms race, that turned into a game of chicken. Thankfully someone stepped down. Similarly, countries had entered a long arms buildup before an assasination served as the spark to the powder keg.

I think nuclear weapons in every home is a bit over the top. But I'm willing to listen to arguments.

I agree with you on the importance of protecting yourself and your family against the criminals through the deterent of potential force, however such a viewpoint seems to present a pretty dark, corrupt view of society - that no one is ever safe. I find it hard to imagine a society in which violence to onesself and their family is so likely to occur that one needs to always carry a weapon.

It's a rough neighborhood. There are poeple out there who will not only kill you (and yours) - they will eat you. Violment criminals just love unarmed citizens. It makes it SO much easier.

It's a "dark" view that you will be in a automobile accident. Do you fasten your seatbelt? Buy a car with airbags? Drive "defensively"?

Our Constitution was written by folks who had recently experienced killing the government's men in an eight-year-long war. They did not trust government, and had no reason to do so. IF the situation has changed, then the Constitution has not. It remains our supreme law and is not subject to change by a minority in Congress or CBS, ABCBS, NBCBS, CNNBS, or PBS.

 

[dingle]

And since i am Canadian, might as well bring your lovely Northern Neighbour into this

Less guns... less violence... less homicide... admitedly the gun registry the government tried was a failure and a flop. The point i am simply trying to raise is that we have a lower crime rate than the united states, and we have achieed it without the arming of the citizenry.

Unfortunately, if you look at crime rates in states bordering on our provinces, the Canadian gun violence rates are on par, and in some cases higher, than in those border states; this is if you remove New York and Chicago. It might seem like tilting the odds, but you must remember that these cities (along with Washington, DC) have banned guns, making them more restrictive than Canadian cities.

So although we like the myth of being nice, safe Canada, it ain't necessarily so.
Not only that, but before 1978, when the Firearms Aquisition Certificate came in, you could buy and register full-auto machineguns. Permits to carry concealled handguns were available, if uncommon, and our crime rate was incredibly low compared to now. There is less armed citizenry now, but it certainly hasn't kept the crime rate from soaring...

 

[Tohatchi NM]

I think that the Second Amendment arose from a greater trust in personal responsibility than honest government. People bend the collective power entrusted in government to their own benefit even in current US system, which I would argue is doing quite well as far as governments go. Unfortunately, lack of personal responsibility is a major problem with respect to gun violence. Criminals use firearms as instruments of personal power to rule over others by force, and without regard for the consequences of their actions.

Some more fuel for the fire:

1. Police are not obligated to protect you, as far as I know. They investigate crimes, but in the minutes, hours, or days between when a crime starts and the investigation begins, you are on your own.

2. Armed resistance has a spotty history in the US. The Revolutionary war went OK. Civil War was mixed. The plains wars (westward expansion, relocation of the Indians, and settlement) were a mixed bag. Native Americans were moderately armed, but did not fare well at all. It should be noted that most of their arms were technologically inferior to the US Army and many settlers. Recent incidents involving federal agencies (Ruby Ridge, Waco), have not ended well for citizens attempting to overthrow tyranny - though presumably the armed conflict generated more public knowledge than a quieter incident would have. I'm not arguing whether any of the above incidents were good or bad - just that the government prevailed in the armed conflict.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

just that the government prevailed in the armed conflict.

The government picks and chooses its armed conflicts. Even so ...

US government against Kent State students -- publicity disaster.
US government against Ruby Ridge -- another disaster.
US government against Waco Branch Davidians -- incredible disaster.
And I already mentioned the contentious Elian Gonzalez incident.

Can the citizenry be trusted to dispose of deadly force properly? Perhaps.
Can the government? Perhaps not.

 

[Vivi]

Our house has never been broken into since we moved to Ohio, but we still lock our doors when we leave the house.

 

[Sutcliffe]

They are in place to protect the common good. Not the individual. There have been cases where murders have been committed by felons right under the watchful eye of police on the scene and it was ruled that they have no obligation or duty to prevent harm to you from another party.

Hate to throw this one out, but gun control tends to be racist.
Ever think it was a coincidence that the Gun Control Act of 1968 just happened at the height of the Civil Rights movement?
California used to allow open carry up until the Black Panther's showed up with arms at the State Capitol to protest the opression of city government and the local police department in the city of Oakland. Until that time it was perfectly legal and not too uncommon.
Time and time again, gun legislation tends to be very selective in who it targets. Just food for thought.

 

[Thomas Linton]

. . .Hate to throw this one out, but gun control tends to be racist.
Ever think it was a coincidence that the Gun Control Act of 1968 just happened at the height of the Civil Rights movement?
California used to allow open carry up until the Black Panther's showed up with arms at the State Capitol to protest the opression of city government and the local police department in the city of Oakland. Until that time it was perfectly legal and not too uncommon.
Time and time again, gun legislation tends to be very selective in who it targets. Just food for thought.

And the Sullivan Act? (1911)
And the National Firearms Act? (1934)
And the Brady Bill? (1993)

 

[Nasty]

I agree Tom...almost time to close this one.

Maybe everyone will simply walk away having learned *something*.

Well...I can hope so anyway.