100 homicidal home invasions

[Seth]

Furthermore, the issue of a well regulated militia is very much a two-edged sword. Horrible dictators like Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Castro and so on overthrew legitimate governments precisely because they had very well regulated militia at their disposal.

Absolutely true, but here's the catch: They were able to do so because their military forces were the only ones with effective weaponry.

The very first thing every one of those you mention did, upon coming to power, was to disarm the general population and limit the possession of arms only to their hand-selected loyal militia/military, which brutally repressed all dissent and objection, usually by killing vast millions of people...all of whom were unarmed and therefore unable to resist their murder.

And that is exactly the threat that the Framers so wisely saw and defended against with the 2nd Amendment. The militia clause is usually misunderstood as meaning that the people are only entitled to arms if they are members of the militia, but this is not the case. A "well-regulated militia" in the Framer's contemporary understanding meant "properly trained, equipped and armed so as to be effective immediately as a useful military force when called to duty" but has nothing to do with the command and control of the militia when on duty. This is proven by the various pre-revolutionary colonial ordinances that required all able-bodied men to keep and bear particular arms and equipment as specified in the ordinance. This included not only the requirement that they possess a musket, but also specified amounts of power and bullets, along with rations and personal equipment such as a blanket. Members of the colonial militias regularly met, usually after Sunday church services, to be inspected by their militia commanders (usually chosen by themselves) to make sure they were properly equipped. Drill and training would often follow.

Militia members were not just expected, but commanded to appear for drill or duty with their own arms and ammunition. The purpose of course being that the urgency of need does not admit keeping the reserve (unorganized) militia disarmed because both the cost and difficulty of obtaining, storing and distributing arms to the militia members both for drill and for duty would render the militia largely useless because the emergency (Indian attack, civil unrest, invasion, etc.) would be either over or the government would lose the military advantage of having a fully-armed and equipped militia available to be called up at a moment's notice, which could mean disaster for the nation.

The second clause, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not state that the only reason people need or may possess arms is for militia duty. The militia is not mentioned in that clause. The clause refers to "the people," which means the entire body of the people, without limitation, and the reason their right to keep and bear arms was protected, with respect to the need for a "well regulated militia" and the "security of a free state" was so that every militia force in the country would always have access to sufficient arms and ammunition at a moment's notice, which might be appropriated from those not part of the unorganized militia in accordance with the Constitution.

One of the principle threats recognized by the Framers in drafting the amendment was the threat they had just finished defeating, at the cost of many lives, which is the threat of a despotic tyrant taking power and, as his first act (as is always the case), seizing the arms of the common people in order to quell effective rebellion.

The Framers wisely decided that they could not predict the future and could not know what events might take place to allow a despot to take control of the nation, but they knew it could happen, and had happened to them, so they acted to constrain the federal government and forbid it from ever disarming the people in order to thwart the intentions of any tyrant who might attempt to do so.

That is why the second clause says "the right of the people..." and not "the right of the militia..." or "the right of the state..."

The Framers knew perfectly well that an armed populace would ALWAYS outnumber any militia or standing army, and that so long as the people were in possession of arms suitable for military use no standing army of a tyrant or rogue militia unit could take over the nation and oppress the people because the vast majority of the populace would always be able to fight back and overwhelm any such attempt at need.

180 million people with 300 million guns equals 300 million people, each with one gun, which is the world's most formidable military force, and always will be. Our standing army consists of fewer than 2 million soldiers under arms. And even the Reserves and the local and state militias, which are unlikely to all band together to support a tyrant, don't begin to compare to ten, twenty, fifty or 300 million armed citizens determined to secure their freedom and liberty in the face of despotism and tyranny.

[Seth]

WE MUST BAN DRUGS, THEY KILL PEOPLE!

Oh, wait, we already do ban drugs, and it doesn't work.

Clue!

DEA: Drug Overdose Deaths Surpass Those From Firearms, Car Crashes
0
Drugs are prepared to shoot intravenously by a user addicted to heroin on February 6, 2014 in St. Johnsbury Vermont. Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin recently devoted his entire State of the State speech to the scourge of heroin. Heroin and other opiates have begun to devastate many communities in the Northeast and Midwest leading to a surge in fatal overdoses in a number of states. As prescription painkillers, such as the synthetic opiate OxyContin, become increasingly expensive and regulated, more and more Americans are turning to heroin to fight pain or to get high. Heroin, which has experienced a surge in production in places such as Afghanistan and parts of Central America, has a relatively inexpensive street price and provides a more powerful affect on the user. New York City police are currently investigating the death of the actor Philip Seymour Hoffman who was found dead last Sunday with a needle in his arm.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images

by Dr. Susan Berry7 Nov 20150
The number of deaths from drug overdose in the United States has surpassed those from firearms and motor vehicle accidents each year since 2008, according to a newly released report published by the Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA) Summary notes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) report that 46,471 Americans died of a drug overdose in 2013 – the last year for which information regarding overdose deaths is available – compared with 35,369 deaths due to car crashes and 33,636 as a result of firearms.

od

“Drug overdose deaths have become the leading cause of injury death in the United States, surpassing the number of deaths by motor vehicles and by firearms every year since 2008,” writes Chuck Rosenberg, acting administrator of DEA. “Overdose deaths, particularly from prescription drugs and heroin, have reached epidemic levels.”

More than 700 people died in the United States between 2013 and 2014 due to Fentanyl and its analogs – which are more potent than heroin – says the DEA. In addition, the administration notes that with a decline in the availability of cocaine, drug distributors and users will search for methamphetamine as an alternative.

Marijuana remains the most commonly used illegal drug due to its wide availability. Despite the trend toward legalizing marijuana, DEA states “marijuana concentrates, with potency levels far exceeding those of leaf marijuana, pose an issue of growing concern.”

As Breitbart News previously reported, CDC found that the proportion of high school seniors who smoke marijuana has surpassed the proportion that smokes cigarettes.

Additionally, DEA observes synthetic designer drugs continue to be a major threat in the United States, particularly to youth.

Rosenberg adds the Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) are the most dangerous drug trafficking organizations in the United States due to their high level of sophistication. These groups “are responsible for the extreme violence seen in Mexico,” he says, noting that they “battle for turf and attack public officials and innocent civilians.”

“Domestically, affiliated and violent gangs are increasingly a threat to the safety and security of our communities,” Rosenberg continues. “They profit primarily by putting drugs on the street and have become crucial to the Mexican cartels.”

[Blind groper]

Seth

On the idea of overthrowing totalitarian governments.

You may recall that my main thrust in this discussion is hand guns. Hand guns are responsible for most gun homicides in the USA, to a total of roughly 8,000 each year, which is half of all murders.

Your arguments do not apply to hand guns, since they are pretty much useless in overthrowing a dictator, anyway.

All developed western governments permit some gun ownership, though within strict criteria. But they do not permit hand guns in civilian ownership. As a result, the gun murder rate in all those nations is a tiny fraction of what it is in the USA. So why not restrict hand guns, in order to save thousands of human lives each year?

And please do not quote "rights" to me. You no more have a right to a gun than you have a right to drive a car without a licence, or to drive drunk, or faster than the speed limit. Those things are restricted to save lives, and that is also the reason to restrict hand guns.

[Seth]

Seth

On the idea of overthrowing totalitarian governments.

You may recall that my main thrust in this discussion is hand guns. Hand guns are responsible for most gun homicides in the USA, to a total of roughly 8,000 each year, which is half of all murders.

Your arguments do not apply to hand guns, since they are pretty much useless in overthrowing a dictator, anyway.

No they aren't. In fact, handguns have been the most prominent weapon used to assassinate or kill political leaders, from Abraham Lincoln to Adolph Hitler (who used one to commit suicide). Therefore, for the patriot intent on killing a despotic tyrant (or the Pope) a handgun is the preferred tool because of its effectiveness and directabiity. The patriot can kill the despot without blowing up everyone around him.

Or they can be used to kill other political and/or military leadership who need to be removed to put an end to tyranny. For such missions handguns are particularly suitable to the task. So once again you're wrong.


They are extremely valuable military tools, which is why our troops carry them. Handguns, being small and concealable are excellent weapons for partisan forces fighting behind the lines using covert methods. That is why the US air-dropped hundreds of thousands of "Liberty pistols," which were cheap, easy to manufacture en masse stamped-steel single-shot handguns that carried five spare rounds in the grip. They were parachuted to partisans in Europe during WWII for the express purpose of giving those disarmed irregular soldiers a weapon with which they could kill an enemy soldier and then take his larger, more powerful rifle and ammunition to continue the fight.

They are also valuable military weapons for special operations and as last-resort defensive weapons should a soldier's rifle be disabled or run out of ammunition.

So, once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

All developed western governments permit some gun ownership, though within strict criteria. But they do not permit hand guns in civilian ownership. As a result, the gun murder rate in all those nations is a tiny fraction of what it is in the USA. So why not restrict hand guns, in order to save thousands of human lives each year?

Because you admitted that the raw population of handguns in any country has nothing to do with the violent crime rate, so why restrict them?

And please do not quote "rights" to me.

Sorry, but I WILL quote rights to you because that is the basis of our civilization.

You no more have a right to a gun than you have a right to drive a car without a licence, or to drive drunk, or faster than the speed limit. Those things are restricted to save lives, and that is also the reason to restrict hand guns.

I think I must have explained what a crock this particular analogy is more than two dozen times to you specifically and you just go right on ignoring some simple facts:

I don't have a right to drive a car, on a public highway, without a license or drunk or faster than the speed limit. I do however have a right to own and possess a car, or as many cars as I choose to own and possess without seeking government permission to do so.

Likewise, I have the right to own and possess any handgun or handguns I choose to possess without seeking government permission to do so, but I do not have a right to unlawfully operate that handgun any more than I have a right to unlawfully operate an automobile.

You see, possession and use are two entirely different things. Well, evidently you DON'T see this despite having it described to you in detail dozens of times.

So, having disposed of your bullshit analogy with respect to ownership and possession of either cars, or guns, or practically anything else that is not defined as contraband, we move on to operation of such devices.

As you say, I do not have a right to operate a vehicle unlawfully. But I do have a right to operate a vehicle lawfully. What this means is that while I must register the vehicle and affix identification plates to the vehicle, and I must obtain a driver's license in order to operate a vehicle on the public highways, so long as I meet the requisite criteria for licensure and pay the appropriate taxes for registration the government is legally obligated to issue me a driver's license and register my car and allow me to lawfully operate it on the public highways. It is not discretionary for the government. It MUST do so if I meet the necessary criteria because I do in point of legal fact have a right to operate a vehicle on the public highways. This right exists unless and until I demonstrate that I cannot safely and lawfully do so, in which case I am forfeiting that right as a result of misbehavior on my part.

The same thing is true of handguns or any other arms. I have a right to keep and bear them (obtain, possess and transport them) that cannot be revoked or denied by the government absent some misbehavior on my part that causes me to legally forfeit that right.

On the other hand, like drunk driving, I do not have a right to unlawfully operate my firearms. The right to operate (ie: discharge) a firearm is the subject of 50,000 individual laws nationwide that reasonably regulate virtually every aspect of firearms operation, and if I violate any of those laws by improperly or illegally operating (discharging or even displaying improperly) my firearms, then I can be stripped of that right in a court of law, pursuant to due process.

So, the analogy is that I can own any car or cars I want, and I can drive them on the streets in accordance with the regulations for doing so, and the government cannot arbitrarily deny me the exercise of that right unless I act unlawfully. I can also own any guns I want and I can carry them on the streets in accordance with the regulations for doing so, and the government cannot arbitrarily deny me the exercise of that right unless I improperly or unlawfully operate that firearm.

Your proposed solution to the extremely rare event of improper or illegal operation of a firearm is to ban all firearms rather than simply dealing with such events as they happen, on an individual basis, just as we do for drunk drivers. In your fantasy world we would ban all cars merely because every year a larger number of operators improperly or illegally operate them and kill people than improperly or illegally operate handguns or any other firearms and kill people.

As anyone with half a brain can see, the notion of banning an object as a method of preventing improper or illegal use of that object (otherwise known as "prohibition") is a grossly stupid idea that not only has severe unintended consequences for society and individuals, but is utterly useless in actually preventing improper or unlawful use of that object.

[Blind groper]

Again we see Seth talk of 'rights' as if they were God given. They are not. They are simply what governments see as expedient (or award after being paid a big enough bribe, as in the right to bear arms).

Using the assassination of Lincoln as an example of fighting totalitaranism is a joke. The USA has a long history of assassination, and little if any can be described as fighting for freedom. Duh!!!

[Jason]

I'm going to dive into the deepest end and suggest, from years of dealing with Seth, that, if he holds any beliefs at all, it may be the 'rights' of the individual as may be defined by a 'stable' relationship as may be determined by game theory between a society and an individual in society. It is entirely theoretical, but not divine in nature.

I suggest this because it results in two evolutionary peaks - climbing mount GUN into the society of armed and polite conversation that Seth promotes; and climbing mount Co-Operative into the society of politely disarmed persons who resolve their disputes by recourse to the community that most everyone else promotes. Devolving to the transition point between the two types of evolutionary peaks is the real problem to be tackled and involves what Seth so eloquently calls "Unicorn Farts".

[JimC]

I'm going to dive into the deepest end and suggest, from years of dealing with Seth, that, if he holds any beliefs at all, it may be the 'rights' of the individual as may be defined by a 'stable' relationship as may be determined by game theory between a society and an individual in society. It is entirely theoretical, but not divine in nature.

I suggest this because it results in two evolutionary peaks - climbing mount GUN into the society of armed and polite conversation that Seth promotes; and climbing mount Co-Operative into the society of politely disarmed persons who resolve their disputes by recourse to the community that most everyone else promotes. Devolving to the transition point between the two types of evolutionary peaks is the real problem to be tackled and involves what Seth so eloquently calls "Unicorn Farts".

Like the old Irish joke that ends "but you can't get there from here"

And yes, there is some truth to it. I cannot see a way for the US to abandon its current gun culture without the situation becoming at least temporarily worse...

[Seth]

Again we see Seth talk of 'rights' as if they were God given. They are not.

They may or may not be "God given," but they are damned sure natural, inherent and unalienable.

They are simply what governments see as expedient (or award after being paid a big enough bribe, as in the right to bear arms).

Your opinion is noted and discarded.

Using the assassination of Lincoln as an example of fighting totalitaranism is a joke. The USA has a long history of assassination, and little if any can be described as fighting for freedom. Duh!!!

And yet it still proves that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about when it comes to guns and tactics.

[Seth]

I'm going to dive into the deepest end and suggest, from years of dealing with Seth, that, if he holds any beliefs at all, it may be the 'rights' of the individual as may be defined by a 'stable' relationship as may be determined by game theory between a society and an individual in society. It is entirely theoretical, but not divine in nature.

I suggest this because it results in two evolutionary peaks - climbing mount GUN into the society of armed and polite conversation that Seth promotes; and climbing mount Co-Operative into the society of politely disarmed persons who resolve their disputes by recourse to the community that most everyone else promotes. Devolving to the transition point between the two types of evolutionary peaks is the real problem to be tackled and involves what Seth so eloquently calls "Unicorn Farts".

The problem with this analysis is that whereas "mount GUN" enhances personal safety and liberty by recognizing and acknowledging fundamental facets of ordinary human nature, "mount Co-Operative" completely ignores fundamental human nature in a vain attempt to create a society ruled by good manners and polite behavior that simply ignores the fact that there will always be those who have neither good manners, polite behavior, or benign intent.

There will ALWAYS be antisocial, psychopathic and just plain evil people in the world who want to harm others and take stuff from them, no matter how friendly and co-operative the non-criminals of the society may be.

That's just a simple fact of life that the "mount Co-Operative" mountaineers cannot possibly conquer, ever.

Therefore, there is always going to be a need for the individual to be cognizant of the risks posed by such antisocial elements and be personally prepared to deal with them should the need arise.

And the only way to stop some antisocial deranged killer with a gun is with another gun, and the more quickly that defensive firearm can be put into action, the fewer the number of people who will be injured or killed.

[Jason]

This is true. I accept that the police are there to mediate between criminal elements bent on destruction and the rest of humanity and that they may have certain failings. I am not prepared to accept an armed populace as a response to failures of the police to separate the civil and criminal. If the police needs be improved, then so be it, but I cannot bring myself to arm against a real threat for reasons of fallout - the ramifications of my arming are much more far reaching than just my immediate position - let alone the 'potential' threats many in the United States of America arm themselves against - they are not in primary danger but arm and prepare as though they are. This is acceptable behaviour for mount GUN but not for mount Co-Operative where we designate highly trained professional forces with dealing with these inescapable criminal elements of society primarily. Secondarily, is the rehabilitation system - I don't want to fog the debate by introducing that but the point of rehabilitation systems (prisons) is to rehabilitate into society - society of the GUN or society of the Co-Operative - not temporary removal of a threat. It is the job of the police force and the rehabilitation system to effectively neutralize the criminal elements as they arise. I'm afraid that in the society of the GUN the adversarial approach can, at best, lead to a 'mexican' stand-off whereby the 'good guys' are locked in an eternal vigil with the 'bad guys' of the criminal element. This causes a culture of fear that is self-perpetuating and by it's very nature perpetuates the glamourization of the criminal element - it becomes a valid counter-cultural element and draws in new blood (that is inevitably corrupted) by its popular conception.

In short the society of the GUN will effectively stymie criminal behaviour but at the cost of eternal criminality in a self-perpetuating cycle that is terribly wasteful if nothing else. My point is that there is a better way, that of dealing with criminality by professional, and publicly appointed, forces while keeping the focus of the energies of youth on the rejuvenation of the power structure rather than the 'countering' of it by criminal means.

I mean.. yeah.

[Seth]

This is true. I accept that the police are there to mediate between criminal elements bent on destruction and the rest of humanity and that they may have certain failings. I am not prepared to accept an armed populace as a response to failures of the police to separate the civil and criminal.

So...you're a police-state advocate?

If the police needs be improved, then so be it,

The police, by their very nature, are a reactive agency not intended (or obligated) to defend any particular individual against any particular crime.

“Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.” Sir Robert Peel, Founder of the London Metropolitan Police, the first organized police force in history.

but I cannot bring myself to arm against a real threat for reasons of fallout - the ramifications of my arming are much more far reaching than just my immediate position - let alone the 'potential' threats many in the United States of America arm themselves against - they are not in primary danger but arm and prepare as though they are.

No one requires you to arm yourself. All we demand and expect is that you refrain from infringing on the right of others to do so.

This is acceptable behaviour for mount GUN but not for mount Co-Operative where we designate highly trained professional forces with dealing with these inescapable criminal elements of society primarily.

When your need for the police to protect you is seconds away, the police are only minutes away.

Secondarily, is the rehabilitation system - I don't want to fog the debate by introducing that but the point of rehabilitation systems (prisons) is to rehabilitate into society - society of the GUN or society of the Co-Operative - not temporary removal of a threat. It is the job of the police force and the rehabilitation system to effectively neutralize the criminal elements as they arise.

This is largely true, but it's also the duty of the government to sequester those who cannot be rehabilitated away from the population so that they cannot do further harm. More importantly, the police cannot provide personal security for every individual in society who might face a threat from a member of the criminal element who has not been so neutralized.

I'm afraid that in the society of the GUN the adversarial approach can, at best, lead to a 'mexican' stand-off whereby the 'good guys' are locked in an eternal vigil with the 'bad guys' of the criminal element.

Well, that is, for better or worse, the universal and ever-lasting situation that cannot ever be resolved because human nature demonstrates that no matter how hard the culture tries to extirpate crime from society is is, and always will be, unsuccessful. Therefore there will always be a risk of criminal victimization in any (and every) human society, at least for the foreseeable future of humankind, which means that every individual is always at risk to some degree and therefore has a right to such tool of effective self defense as are necessary to his or her personal safety.

This causes a culture of fear that is self-perpetuating and by it's very nature perpetuates the glamourization of the criminal element - it becomes a valid counter-cultural element and draws in new blood (that is inevitably corrupted) by it's popular conception.

Only if the criminal element doesn't get regularly dead while following their avocational inspirations.

In short the society of the GUN will effectively stymie criminal behaviour but at the cost of eternal criminality in a self-perpetuating cycle that is terribly wasteful if nothing else.

I'm afraid that's an inevitability under any circumstances for the reasons elucidated above.

My point is that there is a better way, that of dealing with criminality by professional, and publicly appointed, forces while keeping the focus of the energies of youth on the rejuvenation of the power structure rather than the 'countering' of it by criminal means.

No, there really isn't. Yes, attempts to reduce criminality using other methods of social control are perfectly appropriate, but often only marginally effective. Even if they were highly effective there will always be criminals who do not respond to such efforts who will choose to victimize innocents, which makes the need for personal protection both inevitable and necessary, and universal.

Appealing to our better nature as humans is a good thing, but it's also naive and actually harmful if it causes you to disregard the actual facts of human nature and behavior.

[Jason]

I want to call a fucking pause right now.

Seth has just engaged legitimately.


K?

He's not a troll after all.


Right.. when I sober up I hope I'll have the reserves to engage him further, but damn people, he's not a troll after your goats.


ETA: please don't edit your previous post significantly Seth.

[Seth]

I want to call a fucking pause right now.

Seth has just engaged legitimately.


K?

He's not a troll after all.


Right.. when I sober up I hope I'll have the reserves to engage him further, but damn people, he's not a troll after your goats.


ETA: please don't edit your previous post significantly Seth.

I won't. And thank you. Drunk in peace to you.

[Blind groper]

When Seth gets old enough to attain a little wisdom, he may realise what everyone else here already knows. The guns in the USA are not the solution. They are the problem. Without guns, and especially hand guns, the threats that Seth feels to need to guard against simply do not exist.

Come to NZ, Seth. You will not be permitted to own or carry a hand gun. But you will not need one. And your chances of getting murdered will immediately drop five fold.

[Blind groper]

Using the assassination of Lincoln as an example of fighting totalitaranism is a joke. The USA has a long history of assassination, and little if any can be described as fighting for freedom. Duh!!!

And yet it still proves that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about when it comes to guns and tactics.

There are plenty of guns in Syria, and plenty of people with guns fighting the dictator, Assad, and yet he is still alive and ordering his army to kill people wholesale.

Guns there have made matters far worse, not better.

By comparison, in Myanmar, where the resistance movement has been totally peaceful, is now having democratic elections for the first time.

Mahatma Gandhi eschewed guns and violence, and overturned the British Empire, leading his country into independence. The perceived need for guns is an illusion.