New Second Amendment Case

As a retired federal agent who had to face armed drug peddlers routinely, I can still tell you that I am far more comfortable if my neighbors....my countrymen are well and truly armed. I BELIEVE in the second ammendment to keep everyone in due bounds. If coroners' juries were all gun carrying citizens, all would have an appreciation for the circumstances which bring a reasonable man to say "Enough!" and take action. Then when some perp starts victimizing your neighbor, you could wax his........you could prevent further atrocity, and be assured of being backed by the jury. I think this what the founding fathers had in mind.....not some militia.
 
Heh. Well Esav, i think your right and i will have to break down and take an American History course here.

And while i agree with quite a few points raised over the course of this debate, and many have given me pause and food for thought,i still hold much to my original position. I agree with alot of the reasoning you have all made for why the citizens of a country should bear arms.

As Esav and i explored before, crime rates cannot be held to be determinant on gun liscencing/owning/carrying rates alone.

Along the entire "the police have no duty to protect you", keep in mind that is the States... your laws, and your interpretations of those laws, and the subsequent role your police force plays, will not hold uniformly internationally.

I guess the biggest thing that erks me is the reliance on force, or the threat of force as a solution to problems. Gun ownership and possestion as protection... American foreign policy (whole new can of worms). I just find it rather depressing so little faith is put in the behaviour and intention of humanity. Really. The world isn't out to get you.
 
It is impossible to discuss issues like these without a real understanding of the social environment. This is part history, part current events, part individual circumstances. So at best we can only try to explain our own stances, with some of our reasoning, and hope we're speaking dialects of the same language.

Radrunner said:
I just find it rather depressing so little faith is put in the behaviour and intention of humanity. Really. The world isn't out to get you.
Click to expand...

What I find depressing is that so much of the world IS out to get me. This isn't paranoia, it's heightened alertness.
 
Radrunner said:
Give me a time frame here... when did the right to bear arms come in. when did federal agents begin to stary carrying them?
Click to expand...

I'm a little foggy on dates, but it seems to me the Feds increasingly armed themselves in response to the use of automobiles by criminals - not criminal use of firearms. Apparently the availability of cars in the late '20s and early 30's made it easier for crooks to cross state lines while robbing banks, peddling booze, etc. Armed Feds were better able to pursue them across jurisdictions than the local PDs and Sheriffs.

This made perfect sense, but mission-creep began immediately. The Marshals Service was already armed and ready to cross State lines in hot pursuit, but the FBI figured they needed guns too and things progressed from there. Currently the Dept. of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service) has an armed branch for some inexplicable reason, and nobody has apparently noticed this or cared.

In some respects it is comforting to know the USFS is defending our soverign logs with new (deadly force) and augmented authority, but I would be happier with fewer regulations on what I can use to defend myself.
 
Y'all are way too smart for your own good. ;)


Interesting discussion...!


I don't have much to say...except that freedom DOES require defending. Comparing the USA to other countries without taking in account the freedoms we enjoy over those other countries...does both sides an injustice.
 
Radrunner said:
I just find it rather depressing so little faith is put in the behaviour and intention of humanity. Really. The world isn't out to get you.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm pretty sure that MOST of the world isn't out to get me. However, "most" < "all", which means that there are at least a few people out there who, given the opportunity, will indeed be out to get me. I figure I might as well have the right to make things difficult for them. ;)
 
cliff355 said:
. . . Currently the Dept. of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service) has an armed branch for some inexplicable reason, and nobody has apparently noticed this or cared.

In some respects it is comforting to know the USFS is defending our soverign logs with new (deadly force) and augmented authority, but I would be happier with fewer regulations on what I can use to defend myself.
Click to expand...
Cliff, I think you are right on public motivation and "mission creep," but as for Rangers, they are the LEO's on U.S. Forest land. Several have been shot carrying out their duties.


Under U.S. law, a LEO does not have a duty to any particular individual unless they witness a crime in progress or have timely information that should warn them that you will, in future, be a crime victim. Even then, the issue of ability to act may arise. This body of law is in accord with law internationally. It is certainly the law in Canada.
 
Radrunner said:
I just find it rather depressing so little faith is put in the behaviour and intention of humanity. Really. The world isn't out to get you.
Click to expand...
If "you" refers to the U.S., the nation, we have some experience of others coming here and killing in large numbers. When your fleet has been sunk at anchor, your capital burned, and your buildings destroyed cum occupants, your national view of the world may differ from those who have not had that experience.

But the arms we are guaranteed the right to "bear," are for personal defense against unlawful force used by anyone, foreign or domestic. Most governments do not trust their citizens so far or see their citizens as ever having a right to resist "government."
 
Thomas Linton said:
but as for Rangers, they are the LEO's on U.S. Forest land.
Click to expand...

This is where I got a little confused also. USFS Rangers (to include District Rangers and Forest Aides) are not Law Enforcement Officers and do not have powers of arrest. They can issue citations for violating this or that, but if you don't pay them I frankly don't know what happens. Maybe the U.S. Marshals come after you.

Federal Park Rangers are a different story, but they are with the Dept. of Interior and operate in the National Parks. The U. S. Forest Service Police is a new outfit and they are the cops of the National Forest system apparently. They are not Foresters, do not administer timber sales and are definately not Rangers. I am by no means outraged by them, but the first Forest Service truck I saw with a light bar on it gave me pause. Since the National Forests are administered primarily for forest products (I thought) rather than recreation, these guys must be guarding the logs.
 
I know in some areas people have started planting marijuana crops in remote parts of the national forests... I know sequia in california has had this problem... some friends and I were told that if in our hike we found marijuana to leave the area immediatly, hikers had been shot for finding it apparently.

I would assume stuff like that has precipitated Park Rangers arming themselves
 
cliff355 said:
This is where I got a little confused also. USFS Rangers (to include District Rangers and Forest Aides) are not Law Enforcement Officers and do not have powers of arrest. They can issue citations for violating this or that, but if you don't pay them I frankly don't know what happens. Maybe the U.S. Marshals come after you.

Federal Park Rangers are a different story, but they are with the Dept. of Interior and operate in the National Parks. The U. S. Forest Service Police is a new outfit and they are the cops of the National Forest system apparently. They are not Foresters, do not administer timber sales and are definately not Rangers. I am by no means outraged by them, but the first Forest Service truck I saw with a light bar on it gave me pause. Since the National Forests are administered primarily for forest products (I thought) rather than recreation, these guys must be guarding the logs.
Click to expand...
The Office of Law Enforcement of the USFS has apx 600 employees engaged fulltime in law enforcement. Their titles include "Special Agent," "Investigator, and "Ranger, Law Enforcement Officer."

The non-LEO Rangers are the more frequent target of violence. Apparently, telling people they can't do something and giving them tickets is not well-received by some. The USFS reports 477 cases of violence against Rengers ni 2005, and increase of about 1200% in ten years.

USSFS land is abministered to "balance" commercial and recreation use (and they're sticking to that story).
 
Some good discussion here, I don't have a great deal to add other than to sum-up/clarify a few points.

The notion that a democracy or democratically-elected republic cannot become tyrannical is exactly the kind of utopianistic naivety which has led to the downfall of personal freedom time and again throughout history. People always think "it could never happen here." If you could go back to around 45 BC and ask a Roman citizen whether they believed their four-and-a-half century old system of government would in one generation be replaced by a single, absolute ruler who could act with near-impunity, do you think he/she would believe you? And, as has already very rightly been pointed out, do you think the citizen masses who put Hitler into power thought he was going to do what he did?

Total paranoia is not the way to live, but the other end of the pendulum--total lack of concern--is equally silly.

I do not think there is a team of techno-thieves watching my computer activity 'round the clock---I still very seldom transmit my CC info via the internet, and never my social security number.

I do not live in a high-crime community---I still lock my doors when I leave the house.

I do not believe my infantile nephew has any suicidal intentions---I still don't leave him alone by a pool.

I have never had to actually perform CPR---I still go back and get retrained every two or three years.

And finally, no I do not believe that every person who seeks government office is an aspiring demigod just waiting for his or her chance to dominate me---I'm still cognizant of the fact that every single one of them is a professional popularity-seeker whose career survival is based on being able to say what people want to hear when they want to hear it. Sounds one holy hell of a lot like a used car salesman, doesn't it? The notion of willingly giving any more control of my life to these people than they already have is just repugnant to me. And yes, whether you or I like it or not, there will always be some people who will abuse their power once they're given it, and no amount of calmly reasoning with them will ever change it. Hence, while I never want to be in a position of having to defend myself, I DO want to make sure that calm reason is not the only thing I can bring to the table if that position is forced on me. Anyone who seeks to limit my options in such a situation is automatically suspect to me, in regards to either their intentions or intelligence.
 
Thomas:

You are undoubtedly correct on all three points. IIRC when I was a little kid the USFS trucks were dark green - they changed them to lime green to make them more visible so loggers would stop hitting them with falling trees. The joke around Ely was it just made them easier to hit. Rangers have a tough but necessary job.

However, my point was that armed Feds have multiplied like amoebas since J. Edgar Hoover got the camel's nose under the tent flap. Much of this may have been ego-driven fief building, but I think the end result has been a whole lot of government employees running around with live ammo and reporting to a wide range of bosses.

SCOTUS (Supreme Court Police) comes to mind in particular. Security at Federal courthouses is strictly the U.S. Marshal's business but the Justices hired their own 125-officer police force for one facility with essentially one courtroom.

That's o.k. though, as long as they keep coming with the idea that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top