The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[AmericanPride]

Another simply amazing statement, sort of the underlying basis of the political manifesto of The Borg.

You're bringing the intellectual equivalent of a butter knife to a gun fight.

Individual 'freedom' is defined in relation to the individual freedoms of others; ergo, the question of freedom is a collective question which applies to the whole and not simply each part separately. You still haven't provided a definition of 'freedom', which means you're not in a position to make claims about the relationship between governance and/or bureaucracy with freedom. Here's some thoughts on 'freedom' to help your with definition:

1) It should apply universally (i.e. to everyone, the collective, ooohhh).
2) It should be applied equally.
3) Its application for one should not reduce it for another.
4) It should be enforceable and practical.

Are you more free when everyone obeys the laws of the road, or when everyone can do as they please on the road?

[AmericanPride]

Freedom is life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in order to insure that personal responsabilty was also part of the equation.
,

So what's the difference between 'freedom' and 'liberty'?

TheCurmudgeon noted the problem with implementation and enforcement. How do you "insure... personal responsibility"?

The Federal government has zero standing to take my money and give it to someone else. Zero.

According to whom? You? You're not one of those 'sovereign citizens' are you? The top three federal expenditures are: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and Defense. In your socio-pathic world view, the "federal government has zero standing" to "take [your] money" and give it to the elderly, poor, or provide for the national defense. I suppose you would have to argue next the families of the elderly and poor should take care of them, or that it's somehow cheaper for the poor to use the emergency room instead of being provided coverage for subsidized insurance (neither of which are true). So either you're sociopathic and don't care if the elderly and poor end up dead or your ideology is wrong.

[slapout9]

So what's the difference between 'freedom' and 'liberty'?

TheCurmudgeon noted the problem with implementation and enforcement. How do you "insure... personal responsibility"?

Freedom is when someone takes your property witnout your consent. Liberty is when you use your assault weapon to shoot him and get your property back. OK that's a my beer drinking buddy's defintion. He is over here and we are having this discussion in real time. On a more serious note I would say there is no differance.

As for the other question my follow post have pretty much described why I believe, as our founding fathers did, that we must have laws that apply to everyone reguardless of your station in life. Kinda of like the 10 commandments limited and focused.

[carl]

You're bringing the intellectual equivalent of a butter knife to a gun fight.

Well that works pretty good when you sneak up on a guy in the dark and stab him in the throat.

No, I think I'll let you define my positions for me. You seem to enjoy that.

I'll just content myself with gazing at wonderment at your words:

"Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing."

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'll just content myself with gazing at wonderment at your words:

"Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing."

Carl, in this case AP is right. After studying legitimacy for some time it is clear that the idea that freedom only exists in a group is well understood. A person alone on a desert island has no need to define freedom or liberty. These are terms that can have meaning in relation to other people or to a government.

Slap,

Jefferson was about as close to an atheist as you could get in the eighteenth century. He did not feel that religion had any business injecting itself in government.

In Query XVII of Notes on the State of Virginia, he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.[2] Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.

As for the "Protestant ethic" idea, I can see why many people might feel that way. The Protestants were seen as being more industrious, but it had little to do with religion but had more to do with national identity. Check out Laih Greenfeld's "The Spirit of Capitalism". From a review.

Nationalism appeared in England during the sixteenth century, thereby “transforming social consciousness by 1600.” This developing sense of national identity, in turn, imbued the nation with a “new spirit” or “motive force,” thus giving England, despite its paltry resources, a competitive edge over other societies (p. 23). This is Max Weber with a twist. Nationalism, as defined by Greenfeld, replaces Weber’s “Protestant ethic” as the real spirit of capitalism and provides all the things that Weber’s Protestantism could not: egalitarian attitudes, social mobility, free labor markets, personal dignity, international competition, and a commitment to constant growth.

Of course, this is only a theory, but national identity was taking the place of religious identity in England and did the same in America. In America it did it with a vengeance. We even went to far as to attempt to create our own language by changing the spelling of certain words.

Webster believed that the fledgling country needed its own textbooks and a codified language around which to unite. He wrote, “Now is the time and this the country in which we may expect success in attempting changes to language, science, and government. Let us then seize the present moment and establish a national language as well as a national government.” His speller, later reader, and grammar all incorporated American heroes and authors with the goal of creating national symbols to galvanize the country. Between 1783 and the early 1900s it is estimated that Webster’s spelling book sold nearly 100 million copies. Over 30 influential textbooks followed, including History of the United States, the nation’s first full-length history. - See more at: http://connecticuthistory.org/noah-w....5spTfn0Z.dpuf

[TheCurmudgeon]

Getting back to the main theme and what David asked about the villain in popular movies tending to be an evil, repressive government. After thinking about what Stan wrote about the things we have done in recent years, I can see how people would feel that the American government is not the same. That it is no longer the moral stalwart it once was.

Before JW Bush we did not engage in targeted assassinations. There was an executive directive against it. Now drones engage in extrajudicial assassinations on a regular basis. We even justify the innocent people we kill in these attacks as justifiable collateral damage. We even kill American citizens. We now engage in kidnappings and torture, things we would have condemned if committed by others. We use the NSA, an agency that was not supposed to spy on US citizens, to collect meta data on our phone calls. It is not hard to see how the general population could begin to feel uneasy about the way we quickly discarded ideals we felt defined us as a nation in the interest of security.

[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.

[slapout9]

Slap,

Jefferson was about as close to an atheist as you could get in the eighteenth century. He did not feel that religion had any business injecting itself in government.

I understand that but my point was and is that seperation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution as it is so often said to be. What is in the Constitution is protection against the establishment of a national religion ( the church of England) and the protection to freely practice your religion. This goes all the way back to Plymouth Rock, the original cause for the creation of America.

Next I cannot find an original source but the original key defintion of assault rifle was full automatic fire not semi-automatic.

[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.

[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".

[Kiwigrunt]

This is complete nonsense. "The world is more complex" is a justification for bureacrats to collect a check to do nothing of worth, and often to do evil.

Whether or not it is a justification for bureaucrats doing those things (and I agree with you that often it is), does not nullify anything that AmericanPride wrote.

[Kiwigrunt]

Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".

Provided you were a white, Christian, heterosexual male.

[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]

I understand that but my point was and is that seperation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution as it is so often said to be. What is in the Constitution is protection against the establishment of a national religion ( the church of England) and the protection to freely practice your religion. This goes all the way back to Plymouth Rock, the original cause for the creation of America.

Does it not imply separation though, for all practical purposes? Because if it doesn't, then what church would have the privilege not to be separate, to the potential detriment of all the others?

Next I cannot find an original source but the original key defintion of assault rifle was full automatic fire not semi-automatic.

As I have always understood it, the following three points in conjunction:

• capable of automatic fire
• high capacity mag
• medium / intermediate calibre / cartridge

Given point three, I'm not sure why the Austrians called their FN FAL the Stg 58.

[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]

Provided you were a white, Christian, heterosexual male.

A limited group of individuals. The idea was to extend things to to other individuals which we have done pretty well.