Citizens and Weapons

[JayHawk]

in da membrane

 

[Kulindahr]

Your government is not spending to cause crime, they are spending like every other nation to prevent it.
I agree wholeheartedly about the prohibition example, i think the fight on drugs could be a lot better handled by legalising some of them, and that would bound to have a positive effect on cutting crime.
You can't legalise all drugs though, the greatest cause of drug related crime is need, not proliferation. Its petty crime that drives up the statistics, crime perpetrated by users not dealers or traffickers.
Drugs which don't feed a 'need' for people to commit crime, those that are not physically addictive, should be decriminilized to free up resources to tackle the problem drugs and the high crime rate associated specifically with those.

What they claim to be intending and are actually accomplishing are two different things -- and I trust the stated motives of a career politician about as far as I can throw one.

The most violent crime comes from the distribution system fighting itself. Include petty crime and the figure for crime generated by the so-called "War on Drugs" may be over ninety percent -- it's hard to calculate, though, because people will steal food because they spent their money on drugs, and some will argue they stole because they were hungry.

The easiest way to tackle the problem would be, as I've said, would be to end the laws against anything people can grow at home, and allow family businesses to engage in growing and selling. Then add a second tier with penalties drastically reduced for domestically produced drugs.


edit: they make laws to turn things into crimes, then spend money to make the situation worse. in both, they are manufacturing criminals, not catching them.

Ok, well in the UK we have what is known as reasonable force, ergo, we can do and use whatever we like to defend ourself because we have that 'right', tho it is not a right that needs writing down, its human nature to survive.

Gee, it got written down in the U.S. because the U.K. was denying it, back when it was recognized more strongly there than it is now.
And people in the U.K. have gone to prison for defending themselves and their homes, so it isn't very protected a right -- you should write it down.

We don't need a right to carry specific weapons, whereas guns seem to be a protected and legitimate weapon. Does the constitution refer specifically to guns? I mean, baseball bats or swords could be a legitimate replacement that are in the long run safer for society.

Baseball bats are a crappy replacement, as I've already described.
Swords are also a crappy replacement, again as I've already described.

What the Constitution refers to are "arms", which in context means the very sort of weapons used by the military. But (see below) one must understand what was meant by "militia" in order to be clear on this.

'A right restricted is a right denied', hmmm, so, you won't be arrested for making bombs in the US? Or is there a list somewhere that dictates the limitations of that constitutional right to exclude specific weapons, in which case, guns could easily be added to it.

There's no list, there's a whole meaning in the term "militia", which has been forgotten mostly.

Within that meaning, "to bear arms" refers to, in the case of individuals, carrying around personal weapons. As bombs are not personal weapons, i.e. not the sort of thing every soldier would have, they aren't covered for the "bear" part.

But they are covered. If we examine what weapons militias back then had, it could include cannon, mortars, and more. But as these were not personal weapons, but what we might call crew weapons or specialized weapons, having them or hauling them around didn't apply to individuals, but to militias. Towns had cannon -- that's why so many old courthouses have one on the green -- because towns had militias, which were composed of all the males able to at least carry and make use of personal weapons.

I'm not going to dive into the differences between a private militia (a term with two meanings) and a civic militia; they're not really necessary here.

Largely agree, but i believ that those most likely to use their guns for the purpose of committing crime, are those who are involved in the more lucrative projects where they would be prepared to use their weapon to secure their high-risk goals.

You seem so focused on the defending aspect of the issue, that you fail to acknowledge the survival part of it.

You can argue one way or another that guns offer more defence, but you can't deny that guns have a fatality rate that is higher than that of lesser weapons or fists.

Survival is what I'm looking at: gun restrictions cause people to do, because they empower the criminal. More than a few mass shootings have taken place where they did because the shooter knew no one would be able to shoot back -- they specifically chose prey-rich environments.

As for fatality rates, the most dangerous weapon in the U.S. gets off totally free: the automobile. Compare the number of guns to the number of gun deaths, and the number of cars to the number of automobile deaths.

Though first you have to remove from the equation the government's subsidy of citizen deaths through the so-called "War on Drugs", because a large number of deaths are of participants in the drug distribution system (gangs, cartels, etc) shooting each other. Once government-subsidized death is removed, the numbers are substantially lower.

And where are your thoughts on it being the innocent that dies? And how is it fair to try and portion blame on the families of criminals? It's mentalist. Going over the top in my example here, but how many loved ones know their other half is a serial killer? You can't be so flippant in responding to the feelings of those related to the criminals with such a remark as you made.

But restricting guns is the very thing that requires the innocent to die -- they are turned into prey. Even strict storage laws have required people to die.

If we're going to throttle justice because of the feelings of family and friends, where will you draw the line? We may as well do away with prisons.

It is quite easy to see how such a right in the constitution has served the US well.
At the beginning of your nation, you had multiple threats, the British, the French, i believe the Spanish had brief history there??, then the Native Americans too. Add to this the inevitable squabbles between yourselves.
With no army to defend against your enemies, it makes sense to arm as many as possible for when the need to defend the nation arises.
I don't believe that the right was intended to allow for defense against your own neighbours and your own authority.

LOL

Read the writings on both sides at the time of the debate over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- the BIGGEST reason advanced for the protection of the inherent right to keep and bear arms was so the people could fight the government. Defense against criminals was a distant second.

If your military exists because of the right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that disarming civilians will make the military illegitimate? No, of course not. We know that, because that is the staus quo in most other nations, and the only thing that would be creating illegitimacy in the US, would be your own interpretation of the constitution.

It has nothing to do with the constitution, it has to do with self-ownership and inherent rights. Your argument here boils down to "leftovers from an age of tyranny constitute a logical foundation for doing things". Remember, the "status quo in most other nations" is for gays to be persecuted.

Clearly its a sensitive topic in-house, without having the views of foreign opinion adding to it (which obviously can be considered biased), but its clear that there is disagreement on what the right to keep and bear arms specifically means, who it was intended to refer to and the viability of ammending the constitution without creating problems.

Amending the Constitution wouldn't change the right, it would only persecute the honest. If the Constitution got changed to abolish freedom of religion, would that eliminate the right to freedom of religion? Of course not -- it would only authorize the government to persecute those who exercised an inherent right.

And there's disagreement on what the right means because so many people have drifted into accepting that we are essentially property, that rights are bestowed by government. The great advancement in the American Revolution was not democracy; that's just a tool. The great advancement was the recognition that rights are natural, inherent, inborn, bestowed by a Creator and not by a government.

I agree with this also. Historically, the militaries of the world have been used with hostile intent moreso than the good of their respective nations.
However, i don't believe that there is any more good in allowing a population to have control of itself in the respect of allowing guns to be publicly available. The government, working for the people, should maintain control of the defense of the people. Whilst foreign threat exists, a fighting force is essential. In time, the military will exist as an emergency service if the people of the world could just stop fighting. Something we know that democracy is the only hope of achieving.

You miss the point: democracy is as capable of tyranny as is monarchy. The point is that we own ourselves, that government is literally derived from the people.

The question is not whether the government should "allow guns to be publicly available", because the government has no authority to do that -- the government has only the authority citizens decide to give it. No government remains legitimate if it violates the rights of its citizens. It may have the force -- you argue that it should have the force! -- to coerce citizens into obedience, but at that point they are no different than thugs running a protection racket.

 

[Lefty]

I loved this example, and i can see what you mean, but really it invokes an analogy of a human up against Predator. (the alien)




Ok, well in the UK we have what is known as reasonable force, ergo, we can do and use whatever we like to defend ourself because we have that 'right', tho it is not a right that needs writing down, its human nature to survive.
We don't need a right to carry specific weapons, whereas guns seem to be a protected and legitimate weapon. Does the constitution refer specifically to guns? I mean, baseball bats or swords could be a legitimate replacement that are in the long run safer for society.
'A right restricted is a right denied', hmmm, so, you won't be arrested for making bombs in the US? Or is there a list somewhere that dictates the limitations of that constitutional right to exclude specific weapons, in which case, guns could easily be added to it.


Largely agree, but i believ that those most likely to use their guns for the purpose of committing crime, are those who are involved in the more lucrative projects where they would be prepared to use their weapon to secure their high-risk goals.

You seem so focused on the defending aspect of the issue, that you fail to acknowledge the survival part of it.
You can argue one way or another that guns offer more defence, but you can't deny that guns have a fatality rate that is higher than that of lesser weapons or fists.
I
And where are your thoughts on it being the innocent that dies? And how is it fair to try and portion blame on the families of criminals? It's mentalist. Going over the top in my example here, but how many loved ones know their other half is a serial killer? You can't be so flippant in responding to the feelings of those related to the criminals with such a remark as you made.



It is quite easy to see how such a right in the constitution has served the US well.
At the beginning of your nation, you had multiple threats, the British, the French, i believe the Spanish had brief history there??, then the Native Americans too. Add to this the inevitable squabbles between yourselves.
With no army to defend against your enemies, it makes sense to arm as many as possible for when the need to defend the nation arises.
I don't believe that the right was intended to allow for defense against your own neighbours and your own authority.
If your military exists because of the right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that disarming civilians will make the military illegitimate? No, of course not. We know that, because that is the staus quo in most other nations, and the only thing that would be creating illegitimacy in the US, would be your own interpretation of the constitution.
Clearly its a sensitive topic in-house, without having the views of foreign opinion adding to it (which obviously can be considered biased), but its clear that there is disagreement on what the right to keep and bear arms specifically means, who it was intended to refer to and the viability of ammending the constitution without creating problems.


I agree with this also. Historically, the militaries of the world have been used with hostile intent moreso than the good of their respective nations.
However, i don't believe that there is any more good in allowing a population to have control of itself in the respect of allowing guns to be publicly available. The government, working for the people, should maintain control of the defense of the people. Whilst foreign threat exists, a fighting force is essential. In time, the military will exist as an emergency service if the people of the world could just stop fighting. Something we know that democracy is the only hope of achieving.



**********************************************
What exactly do you mean? Sounds like you are flexing your economic, technological and geographical muscle. Combined with that a military strength to be expected in one of the biggest countries in the world, and it looks a tad like bragging for the sake of it.

oh my, this thread does appear to have gone from a discussion group to an
ass over tea kettle....apples to oranges tea party. Bad guys choose to divorce themselves from civiliz(s)ed rights or privile(d)ge . I have less empathy for them
and their extended families than I do for the victim and his/hers.

Guns were a part of early America even as Clubs to slings and stones and sharp
bladed objects were elsewhere in the world... Apples and Oranges. America
has a wider scale closer affinity with percussive instruments. There was no
elite to deny anyone access like the other places did/do. Apples and Oranges

and is most of this thread it seems....apples and oranges.

*******
Dear friend Mitchy...that wasn't intended the way you took it. America is
NOTthe biggest country by far. Geographically, we are on the planet earth. Earth....geographically are not we all? Strongest? probably not anymore...
but America is the olio of all planet earth. Good, bad, indifferent. In times of
need be it hunger, disaster, disease, war or even political foment she has rolled
up her sleeves and tucked the trousers in her boots to help everyone. Sad,
biddy is growing older and should not poke her nose so deep in other peoples business.........Lemons and Limes...... asterisks denote separate convo from the
thread and are a response to my bud Mitchymo's question...all JMHO and not
anyone elses.
*****************



l