The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[Fuchs]

About firearms, police and culture in general:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffeng...in_Deutschland
(German wikipedia article on firearms use by police in Germany)

The left column is the year, the central one the killed people and the right one is the quantity of shots fired (at people, excluding animals)
The statistics about recent years are reliable and from official annual reports (data pre-1978 is known to be incomplete).

year kills shots
2007 12 46
2008 10 37
2009 6 57
2010 8 47
2011 6 36
2012 8 36

population: roughly 80 million.
The figure for 2012 is the equivalent of about 100 shots fired on humans by all U.S. policemen in a whole year.

You could basically give the German policemen single-shot pistols and for a while even dummy pistols to almost all of them. It wouldn't make much of a difference.

_____________

Whatever problems the United States has with guns (and this includes "Stand your ground"), they're first and foremost rooted in culture (=a failure of culture).

The German police's culture is distinctly different from the American one, and I don't merely base this on TV.
The German police doesn't handcuff much, it doesn't intimidate much, it has no tasers. It usually overtakes cars before stopping them, too (they'd like to change this, but there aren't actually many problems with it).

The statistics show by orders of magnitude more cases of policemen/policewomen being assaulted severely than police shots fired.

[Dayuhan]

I've often noted that Americans who identify as "conservative" face a struggle to reconcile opposite views on freedom. On the one hand you have a strong libertarian streak, built around the idea that people ought to be free to do what they please as long as their actions don't intrude on the freedoms of others. The opposing side is the social conservative streak, which is all about intruding on the freedoms of others: the most cherished freedom of American social conservatives is the freedom to restrict the freedom of those they dislike.

It is of course natural that different people will have different ideas of what "freedom" and "liberty" are, how they are achieved, and, perhaps most important, how to resolve the issues that emerge when those perceptions collide. There are a couple of questions relevant to this thread that are still mysteries to me.

First, when did so many people start fearing the government to the extent they do, and why did that come about? I can see a nearly infinite number of reasons to be annoyed with government, frustrated with government, angry with government... but the fear seems completely out of hand. I suspect that part of the trend may stem from the availability of the internet, and the ability of those with extreme views to surround themselves with sources of "information" that reinforce those views and block out all others. This of course happens with all manner of ideologically fringe factions, but it is very notable among those who have chosen to be terrified of government. Again, the material cited by The Curmudgeon in the original post on this thread is a good example. I don't see this fringe as a major "threat", in any collective sense, but it is very possible that individuals who steep in this fear long enough will fly off the handle and wreak some havoc. It has already happened, it will happen again. How to address that fear and its consequences is of course another question. I don't have any very good answers, just trying to define the question!

The other question... if we claim an individual right to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else, at what point does that right come into play? If I think speed limits or taxes are an excessive constraint on my freedom do I then have the right to shoot a cop who pulls me over, or a tax collector? Who or what defines what's a legitimate cause to take up arms against government? Obviously not the government, but if we proclaim that the determination lies with each individual, doesn't that pretty much legitimize any sort of mayhem that any individual wants to embark upon?

I've had cause to be annoyed, frustrated, and angry with the Kafkaesque labyrinth of bureaucracy that is the US Embassy in Manila. I don't fear it, but I sure as hell don't like it. Does that give me the right to start shooting at it or its employees? I would say it does not, because I can't shoot "the government", and I can't shoot "the embassy" (unless I shoot the building, which would be pointless). I could only shoot a person, an individual who has the same rights I have and who probably has little or no personal responsibility for the rules systems that create the annoyance. That would not be acceptable (aside from the fact that the consequences of the action would be unpleasant).

Instead of asking about when and whether the perception of intrusion on rights justifies the use of armed force against "the Government", we might ask at what point, if any, does the perception of intrusion upon rights justify the employment of armed force against other people... because at the end of the day, when you pick up a weapon and use it, you're not using it against "the Government", you're using it against a person.

[AmericanPride]

I've often noted that Americans who identify as "conservative" face a struggle to reconcile opposite views on freedom. On the one hand you have a strong libertarian streak, built around the idea that people ought to be free to do what they please as long as their actions don't intrude on the freedoms of others. The opposing side is the social conservative streak, which is all about intruding on the freedoms of others: the most cherished freedom of American social conservatives is the freedom to restrict the freedom of those they dislike.

That's the fundamental contradiction in the modern Republican Party. And the Tea Party's claim to libertarianism does not actually resolve this problem; it only intensifies it. The opposition to mandatory coverage for birth control (which has far more numerous medical purposes than Viagra) as well as to gay marriage and/or civil unions are cases in point. The Tea Party is a populist-reactionary element in a party with decreasing appeal among increasingly active segments of society.

First, when did so many people start fearing the government to the extent they do, and why did that come about?

I think the single most important factor was de-segregation. Not only did the federal government actively intervene to overturn state and local level monopolies on political power, it challenged the very foundations of southern politics. Even as the West grows in size, and the North and West surpass the South in economic achievement, the South retains disproportionate representation in Congress. The "conservative values" of the modern Republican Party are a reflection of southern values.

The other question... if we claim an individual right to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else, at what point does that right come into play?

There is no such right recognized anywhere. The "sovereign citizens" movement is an attempt to claim such a 'right' but it has been consistently and relentlessly opposed by the courts and law enforcement. The fundamental requirement for democratic government to function is for the citizen to obey the laws passed by his elected representatives. He is not a 'citizen' if he does not belong to a state, and the state implements its laws through a bureaucracy. A man has no rights under the 'laws of nature' because the 'laws of the jungle' are the laws of the strong; hence the formation of the state to govern the behavior of men.

[Dayuhan]

There is no such right recognized anywhere.

I realize that; it's why I referred to a hypothetical effort to claim such a right. Those engaged in such efforts need to clarify what they want, because it sounds like they propose a system in which any individual has the right to resort to armed force at any offense perceived by that individual. That would be... chaotic, to say the least.

Hypothetically one might say that the right to revolution comes into play when democracy ceases to exist, but too many confuse "democracy" with "getting what I want".

[AmericanPride]

I realize that; it's why I referred to a hypothetical effort to claim such a right. Those engaged in such efforts need to clarify what they want, because it sounds like they propose a system in which any individual has the right to resort to armed force at any offense perceived by that individual. That would be... chaotic, to say the least.

Hypothetically one might say that the right to revolution comes into play when democracy ceases to exist, but too many confuse "democracy" with "getting what I want".

I think a consensus could be established in terms of "self defense" generally, but probably not the specifics. If someone shoots at you, you have the right to shoot back. If policy by a distant elite forces your family into poverty, do you have the right to steal? What about the right to use violence in the progress of that theft? What about the right to use violence to prevent your impoverishment? We could probably agree that slaves have the right to revolt (though obviously that was disputed in the 19th century and prior) but that argument must rely upon the denial of one's freedom as justification. Hence, the definition of 'freedom', which some posters here have declined to provide, is of essential importance in defining one's rights. So where do we start in defining 'freedom'?

[Kiwigrunt]

... but too many confuse "democracy" with "getting what I want".

Isn't true (simplistic) democracy exactly that though? Provided you are fortunate enough to be part of a majority.

[Dayuhan]

Isn't true (simplistic) democracy exactly that though? Provided you are fortunate enough to be part of a majority.

That would be the simplistic version, yes. The US system is set up on the premise that certain rights may not be intruded upon even if the majority desires it. Defining the nature and extent of those rights is a continuing process with no final answer. Overall I think there's been a steady trend toward increased protection of the rights of minorities, which the majority might in some cases perceive as intrusion upon their right to have their way... but of course that's a trend, not a rile, and there are plenty of exceptions.

[carl]

There is no such right recognized anywhere.

Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.

[slapout9]

Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.

:
Yes....it is part of the Declaration of Independence which is part of our Holy Trinity of founding documents, the other 2 being the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

[Dayuhan]

The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.

Do you suggest that each individual has the right to take up arms against "the government" at any time the individual chooses and in response to whatever provocation that the individual sees as sufficient to justify it? Since taking up arms against "the government" would typically means taking up arms against against individuals perceived to be associated with the government, how does one balance such a proposed right against the rights of those one proposes to shoot?

Unless severely qualified, it sounds like a Timothy McVeigh argument.

[carl]

Do you suggest that each individual has the right to take up arms against "the government" at any time the individual chooses and in response to whatever provocation that the individual sees as sufficient to justify it? Since taking up arms against "the government" would typically means taking up arms against against individuals perceived to be associated with the government, how does one balance such a proposed right against the rights of those one proposes to shoot?

Unless severely qualified, it sounds like a Timothy McVeigh argument.

I rarely use this form of text shorthand but...LOL.

I suggest just what I said, each man has the right to self defense. And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

Bad Dayuhan, bad. You are reverting to argument by suggestive questions again rather than just stating a position. Next thing you'll be using the word 'hysteria' again.

Mr. McVeigh made no arguments to my knowledge he just murdered. His name is very useful though to those who want to discredit. At least it is a change from 'hysterical'.

[Dayuhan]

I suggest just what I said, each man has the right to self defense. And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

What you actually said was:

Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense

So it sounds like you are saying that this hypothetical right to revolution is an extension of the right to self defense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like.

However, the right to self defense is qualified, and it is not based entirely on the perception of the person taking the action. If you shoot a person who is shooting at you, that will be considered self defense. If you shoot a person who is throwing popcorn at you, that will not be considered self defense, because there was no imminent threat. To justify the exercise of violence as self defense you have to show some sort of threat, and it has to be a serious one: you can't haul off at someone with a fully automatic weapon of medium caliber with a large capacity magazine simply because that person seemed about to unclog his or her nose in your general direction, and then claim self defense.

It seems logical to me that if this presumed right to revolution is an extension of the right to self defense, there has to be a similar qualifier in place: to justify taking up arms against the government, there has to be a real, imminent, and serious threat involved. What level of threat is sufficient, and who makes the determination in any given case?

Another question generally not addressed by the proponents of a right to revolution is that no matter how much high sounding rhetoric we issue about "taking up arms against the state", or "taking up arms against tyranny", if arms are to actually be used, they will not be used against "the state" or "tyranny", but against other individuals. What level of fear, anger, or annoyance justifies depriving another individual of the right to life?

Again, the individual quoted in the opening post of this thread wrote:

you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)

While that may arguably be true (or not), when you discuss such issues in the context of a claim that they justify an individual declaration of independence and the associated need to use armaments, you have to wonder who he intends to shoot and how his disagreement with government over any of those issues can possibly justify depriving another individual of the right to life, which is what happens when people start shooting over politics.

[AmericanPride]

Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.

Rights should be explicit, not implicit, since by their nature, as you claim, they are granted by God. If it is implicit, then it is a derivation from some other explicit conditions. That said, here's a run-down of the philosophy so far:

1) Dayuhan asked if there's a right "to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else"...

2) To which you replied in the affirmative, "That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right."

3) You later qualified it with "And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

Notwithstanding that "armed revolution" and "secession" are not the same, there are some other terms that require qualification. What is meant by "self-defense"? Again, I ask if policy leads to impoverishment, starvation, or even death, does this justify "armed revolution"? Can "armed revolution" or "secession" be justified as a preventative measure? How many individuals working "in concert" does it take for an "armed revolution" or "secession" to be justified? If a majority rejects "armed revolution" or "secession", is the action still justified? What if the majority rejects the government that the "armed revolution" implements? What if a minority rejects the government that an "armed revolution" implements? Is it just to impose that government on them without their consent? Constitutionally speaking, in the United States neither armed revolution or secession are lawful. Would you be willing to argue that the United States Constitution contradicts your view of natural law?

As for McVeigh, he targeted the Oklahoma City Federal Building as a response to the federal raids on Ruby Ridge and Waco. Not sure if race was an element of his ideology, but it typically is a fundamental issue in far-right ideology in the US. The militia and sovereign citizens movements share your sentiments about a supposed "right to revolution" derived not from the collective conditions of the public, but from the individual perception of his treatment by the state. And usually the ideal 'state of nature'sought by this ideology where all men are free and equal typically devolves, if it ever exists, into anarchy, dictatorship, and warlordism.

[AmericanPride]

Dayuhan,

To go back to your question about fear of government, I think the other major trend, of which arguably desegragation was a part, is the rapid urbanization of the country since World War II. It's not so much that the rural countryside has depopulated, but that metropolitan regions, particularly on the coast, have grown so rapidly that rural America has not kept pace. Like I mentioned in the previous post, this dramatic shift in America's social structure from a rural society to an urban one has not fully translated into a proportionate shift in political power where the rural communities still retain disproportionate representation in Congress. You could probably draw the political faultline on most issues (affirmative action, civil equality, social programs, abortion, and so on) along this cultural rift. And not only are the cultures and values different, but so are the political mechanisms in the exercise of power - rural America has more "responsive" government, in one narrowly defined sense, but this often comes at the exclusion of the 'Other'; in rural America, racial and sometimes religious minorities. That's what the federal government destroyed by dismantling desegregation, the effects of which still undermine the South's economic development.

So when we as a country finally get to the election of Barack Obama, what does he represent? He's a self-made, well-educated, internationally travelled, biracial-American from a large city, none of which earn him any favors from rural America. And it's been rural America that has determined political outcomes for centuries until Obama broke the southern strategy in his first election by focusing on youth and minority outreach. That's a significant achievement given the course of US history. Is it sustainable? My thought is that 2014 mid-terms will be the last gasp of a extinguishing political class. The last two presidential elections demonstrated just how little of America that class actually represents - they will have to find a new strategy since the southern strategy is no longer sustainable. And that means minority and youth outreach, and that also means addressing the issues and values reflected in urban communities and making compromises on rural issues in order to build a national coalition.

Put in the context of your question, those changes represent significant threats to the dominant social norms and order, which intensified the already skeptical (fearful?) disposition of rural America towards the metropolitan 'other'. The Republican Party attempted to mobilize this agitation into favorable political results. Remember, the Tea Party emerged not as a response to Obamacare but to the bank and corporate bailouts at the end of the Bush administration as the economy collapsed, throwing rural communities into chaos. And since then, the GOP has been struggling to maintain its control over the movement's adherents who tend to be very active on the local political scene. And this culminated in shutdown of the government last year and essentially the stoppage of work in the House for the last 2 years, but also into the failure to win the last presidential election since, after all, the Tea Party only represents a narrow rural minority.

[Tukhachevskii]

Contains much that might be of some interest (apoogies if already referenced)


http://intelligencesquaredus.org/deb...its-usefulness

[slapout9]

You could basically give the German policemen single-shot pistols and for a while even dummy pistols to .

Sounds like a good idea. After starting 2 world wars germans should not have any weapons at all,to risky.

[Dayuhan]

Sounds like a good idea. After starting 2 world wars germans should not have any weapons at all,to risky.

As Tom Lehrer once sang...

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that couldn't happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they've hardly bothered us since then...

Guess it made more sense in the '60s.