Guns used for lawful self defense

[Tero]

We don't need no big gubment here, I can do this myself:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... /?slide=23

[FBM]

Bravo, old soldier!

Somehow, I can't quite wrap my head around calling this guy "incompetent." Old and weaker than the people who were breaking into his house, yes, but incompetent, no.

[Seth]

On violence.
There is a saying : "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

This saying is false. The correct saying is : "Violence is the last resort of those who are truly competent". It is, sadly, the first resort of the incompetent. Those who believe violence is the cure are normally part of the incompetent. Violence is a resort, when all else fails. But for anyone who is capable, and a good leader, that violence will only be used if utterly, absolutely necessary, and nothing else will work. Those who resort to violence too readily are not only incompetent, but usually total assholes.

Yup, and that's the way the laws read in most states regarding the use of deadly force.

However, thanks for acknowledging that there is a time when peaceful methods have failed and violence is justified. I've been saying just that all along.

[Seth]

What Seth does not realise is that, as soon as he descends into insult, like referring to New Zealanders as "sheeples", he is immediately revealing the fact that he has no case.

Wrong. It's labeling those who obey the dictates of their government no matter what correctly. Besides, you started with the "psychopath" insults, which, by your own metric, means that you have no case. Oops.

Opinion and emotion are not arguments for rational people.

Nonsense. Nothing whatever wrong with opinions or emotions, particularly when your opponent presents a fact-free emotional opinion as an incontrovertible truth as you have done, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

They are arguments for those who cannot use their brains.

Pot, kettle, black.

Also, Seth does not realise that his "natural rights" argument is a religious one.

Not my version. Mine version of natural rights is entirely based in scientific fact and observable natural behavior of all living creatures.

There are no"natural rights", because only a deity can create such a supernatural item.

Incongruity alert! Natural rights are not supernatural. If they were supernatural, they would be called "supernatural rights." They aren't. Derp.

Human rights are created by human beings, from the minds of human beings.

Wrong. Rights are a philosophical construct enunciated by human beings as a rational response to the natural pressures of survival of all living creatures.

They can also be uncreated, and often are.

Only if those who claim them are unable to defend them.

The best list of human rights is that written as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

BZZZZZT! Emotional opinion alert! You lose.

This declaration notably does not list possession of weapons of murder as a human right.

It doesn't mention clubs and knives, so no one should be allowed to possess baseball bats and butter knives?

It does, however say this:

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

How is one to defend one's life, liberty and security without arms, pray tell?

And then there's this:

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

How is one to resist being enslaved, tortured or degraded when faced with armed agents of despotic regimes without a right to keep and bear arms for self defense, pray tell?

In fact, how is a person to defend ANY of the rights enunciated in that document against those who do not recognize either "the law" or the declaration without arms?

They can't, and that's the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Only the bizarreness of America could ever term such a stupid thing as a human right.

BZZZT! Emotional opinion alert! You have no case. You lose.

As I have said before, the Second Amendment was an accident of history.

No, it was a very deliberate and carefully considered policy that resulted from the Founder's deep (as opposed to your superficial and ignorant) understanding of history and human nature.

It was created at a time when the new government of the new country needed to preserve civilian militias, because that was their only way to defend the new nation.

Wrong. If that were the case, then they would have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to the militias. They didn't, as they themselves said repeatedly in their contemporary speeches, letters, statements and other documented evidence of their intent, and as the US Supreme Court has, finally, unequivocally held. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one, and one of the primary purposes of barring the government from infringing upon that right is so that each and every citizen may, if they choose, be armed for personal defense against criminals, either in society or in their own government. This is the undeniable, incontrovertible fact.

Of course, telling people that the government wanted them to have guns so that they could become cannon fodder was not a smart move. So the new government poured on the bullshit propaganda, calling it a human right.

This is nonsensical non sequitur and completely wrong to boot, as the Founders clearly and unequivocally announced that the OTHER purpose of protecting the pre-existing RKBA was to ensure that the citizenry would always be armed with effective military arms so that they can be called to duty in the Organized Militia when Congress deems it necessary to do so.

And the naive and idiotic people of today who still believe that are quite common. Those with more brain power can see through it.

But not you, who is spouting ideological nonsense in your gross and abysmal ignorance of American history and American law. But that's to be expected from sheeple who have drunk their government's Kool-Aid.

[Seth]

It is a bit ironic a constitution-olatrous right-winger like Seth who sounds like any other person on Fox News calling anyone a "sheeple" though

Actually sheeple was originally used to describe religious right wing nuts who would do anything their local priest told them to do, its anti religious insult related especially to Jesus being a shepherd of his flock

Really? Care to substantiate that claim? Please cite your "first use" evidence that support this statement. Oh wait, you can't, because you're full of shit, as usual.

[Seth]

...

If you truly believe that some law is violating your rights, you may take any of several courses of redress. The best way is to prevent such laws from being enacted in the first place, and there are many ways to do that. ...

Here is where you and I differ, I'm pretty sure. I think 'prevent such laws from being enacted' is the ONLY way to proceed. Unfortunately, that method is currently blocked because of the gerrymandering of US congressional districts. Up to 85-90% of of every US congressional district election results in the incumbent being re-elected because gerrymandering ensures it. That makes our 'elected' representatives totally unresponsive to the electorate, both those who voted against and especially those who voted for them. Fix that from within and you fix everything wrong with this country. I think it can be done peacefully when the moral outrage reaches the tipping point, still some way off. Violence against this system just ensures its continuance.

As I said, there are many ways to do it, and violence is a last resort. But because it is the ultimate last resort to the overthrow of a despotic and unresponsive government, it is absolutely necessary that the citizenry always have sufficient arms of military quality and utility in their personal possession so that should this last resort become necessary they will have the means to retake their freedom from said despotic and unresponsive government. This is because, obviously, if they do not have arms sufficient to overthrow a despotic and unresponsive government the government will simply use its arms to kill them in droves, as Stalin and Mao did.

Moreover, an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent to the emergence of despotic and unresponsive government in the first place because even tyrants know that they can be killed if the people are well armed and sufficiently motivated to resist his tyranny, which is precisely why all despots, as just about their first act, move to disarm the citizenry.

That, in fact, is the trademark and danger signal of any government or demogogue: if they advocate gun control or disarming the public, especially if they use the "public safety" canard while ignoring the need for the citizenry to be able to overthrow a despotic government, then that government or individual is a wannabe tyrant who must never be allowed to come to power and which must be overthrown and destroyed if it, or he attempts to do so, using whatever force is necessary to accomplish that task, without hesitation or quarter.

For allowing one's government to disarm the citizenry is the best and fastest way to enslave and tyrannize them, as history repeatedly and universally proves.

[amused]

...

If you truly believe that some law is violating your rights, you may take any of several courses of redress. The best way is to prevent such laws from being enacted in the first place, and there are many ways to do that. ...

Here is where you and I differ, I'm pretty sure. I think 'prevent such laws from being enacted' is the ONLY way to proceed. Unfortunately, that method is currently blocked because of the gerrymandering of US congressional districts. Up to 85-90% of of every US congressional district election results in the incumbent being re-elected because gerrymandering ensures it. That makes our 'elected' representatives totally unresponsive to the electorate, both those who voted against and especially those who voted for them. Fix that from within and you fix everything wrong with this country. I think it can be done peacefully when the moral outrage reaches the tipping point, still some way off. Violence against this system just ensures its continuance.

As I said, there are many ways to do it, and violence is a last resort. But because it is the ultimate last resort to the overthrow of a despotic and unresponsive government, it is absolutely necessary that the citizenry always have sufficient arms of military quality and utility in their personal possession so that should this last resort become necessary they will have the means to retake their freedom from said despotic and unresponsive government. This is because, obviously, if they do not have arms sufficient to overthrow a despotic and unresponsive government the government will simply use its arms to kill them in droves, as Stalin and Mao did.

Moreover, an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent to the emergence of despotic and unresponsive government in the first place because even tyrants know that they can be killed if the people are well armed and sufficiently motivated to resist his tyranny, which is precisely why all despots, as just about their first act, move to disarm the citizenry.

That, in fact, is the trademark and danger signal of any government or demogogue: if they advocate gun control or disarming the public, especially if they use the "public safety" canard while ignoring the need for the citizenry to be able to overthrow a despotic government, then that government or individual is a wannabe tyrant who must never be allowed to come to power and which must be overthrown and destroyed if it, or he attempts to do so, using whatever force is necessary to accomplish that task, without hesitation or quarter.

For allowing one's government to disarm the citizenry is the best and fastest way to enslave and tyrannize them, as history repeatedly and universally proves.

I understand what you are saying, but I think your model started losing its validity about the time when nations began creating industrialized armies. You're up against nuclear powered aircraft carriers, cruise missles, heavy artillery and now drones. While I admire the courage that would animate a group of armed citizens, I just can't accept that they would have any success. As the (relative) success of the Tea Party has shown, the political system here is approachable enough to be worked from within. Rather than give up on 'the system' I think we are all better served by working it to our advantage rather than violently attacking it. It's here in large part because most of us want it here, as it is.

[MrJonno]

The biggest threat to my 'freedom' isnt the government its my neighbour, luckily for me this threat is not as great as it could be (ie having Seth as a neighbour)

No government in history has every killed anyone, its always neighbour turning on neighbour and its a far better idea when this happens they don't have a machine gun to do it with

[Blind groper]

However, thanks for acknowledging that there is a time when peaceful methods have failed and violence is justified. I've been saying just that all along.

Seth

I have never denied that violence, as a last resort, can sometimes be justified. My argument has been that hand guns, which are weapons purely for killing people, should not be widely available, plus that the American gun culture is a real problem. Nor do I deny the right to self defense. Just the right to own a weapon designed for nothing more than killing people, and which is responsible for half of all murders in the USA and 60% of the suicides. Making that readily available is just idiotic.

So please do not imply things that I have never said. I get enough straw man arguments from other people.

[Blind groper]

Mine version of natural rights is entirely based in scientific fact and observable natural behavior of all living creatures.
.

If so, you have a crap idea of human rights. Living creatures do all kinds of things that we would consider very bad indeed, if carried out by humans. Which, in fact, happens - and is classified as a crime. For example : chimpanzees practice murder, and go to war against neighbouring chimp tribes. Male lions slaughter all the cubs in a pride they take over. Do you want to adopt these behaviours as 'rights'?

Human rights are neither 'natural' or supernatural. They are artificial constructs, generated by the human brain, and put into place as social structures.

[Blind groper]

How is one to defend one's life, liberty and security without arms, pray tell?

For most people in the world today, and throughout history, it comes from depending on the powers that be. The government, police and military. And that is the case, for you, me and everyone else. Because if the government went totalitarian, with the support of the armed forces, and Seth went out in rebellion with his pathetic little weapons, very soon, Seth would be ex-Seth.

[Blind groper]

The biggest threat to my 'freedom' isnt the government its my neighbour, luckily for me this threat is not as great as it could be (ie having Seth as a neighbour)

No government in history has every killed anyone, its always neighbour turning on neighbour and its a far better idea when this happens they don't have a machine gun to do it with

Good points, Mr. Jonno.

Good to see someone actually using his brain.

[Svartalf]

Neighbors? Gotell that to the striking miners at Fourmies, the protesting Arabs 50 years and a week ago at Charonne (Paris)... or those demonstrating students who got charged, shot at and attacked by dogs in Alabama during the human rights period.

[Seth]

I understand what you are saying, but I think your model started losing its validity about the time when nations began creating industrialized armies. You're up against nuclear powered aircraft carriers, cruise missles, heavy artillery and now drones. While I admire the courage that would animate a group of armed citizens, I just can't accept that they would have any success.

And the continued existence of Al Quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Chechen rebels, and all the various guerrilla forces fighting around the globe are explained how, exactly? How many billions has the US spent to ostensibly kill ONE MAN in Afghanistan/Pakistan?

Moreover, in a civil war, which is what it would be, the government is not going to use nuclear weapons on American soil, no matter how severe the provocation. And, in addition, the structure of our armed forces is different than many others in that our military swears allegiance to the Constitution, not to the national leader, and it's predicted that should a tyrant arise and attempt to use the US military and/or National Guard to oppress Americans in America, a large number of them will refuse such orders and will either stand down and do nothing or will join the rebellion. This is particularly true of the National Guard, which is what's known as the "Organized Militia" (one of the branches). The Founders saw and addressed this sort of problem through federalism (small central government, strong state governments) and by limiting Congress' powers over the state forces.

This is why appropriations for the standing army are limited to two years and why we have a relatively small (on a national population basis) a small standing army and a large militia reserve force with disseminated equipment, arms and ammunition.

The danger to a well-armed citizenry, armed with effective military weapons (which we are, and I am) of our standing army being used to support tyranny is quite small because the armed force that could potentially be fielded is at least 1 or 2 hundred times as great as our whole standing army, even assuming (incorrectly) that the entire standing army would support the acts of a despot rather than turning on him and taking out the White House with a couple of JDAMS and some bunker-busters.

Every military officer and enlisted soldier that I know would refuse to obey illegal orders from a tyrant to fire upon American citizens and would willingly take on the federal bureaucracy if it was necessary to preserve and restore the Constitution and protect the rights of the People.

The reason that the Egyptian military refused to fire on the demonstrators as they were ordered to do by Mubarak during the 2011 Egyptian revolution is because their senior military commanders were largely instructed and indoctrinated by the United States military to show fealty to the People of Egypt, not necessarily the "elected" leader.

In the Federalist No. 29, Hamilton, Jay and Madison wrote:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be
abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the
utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible,
be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of
the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a
select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit
them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it
will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia,
ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require
it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but
if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties
of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at
all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready
to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing
army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution
should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from
the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and
perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is
a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of
danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to
treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere
trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous
artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring
of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our
fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors,
our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are
daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate
with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What
reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the
Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its
services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the
SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible
seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable
establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the
officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to
extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always
secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is
apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance,
which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind
nothing but frightful and distorted shapes --

"Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire";

discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming
everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable
suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for
the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to
Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of
Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch
are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one
moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the
people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from
their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy
of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an
equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic
Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art
or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the
people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism,
what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the
militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and
hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery
upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of
the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a
project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to
make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed
people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a
numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the
detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do
they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of
power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves
universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober
admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they
the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If
we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most
ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would
employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper
that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another,
to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence
of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the
first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is,
indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of
affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be
no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a
neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of
self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

(Emphasis added)

As the (relative) success of the Tea Party has shown, the political system here is approachable enough to be worked from within. Rather than give up on 'the system' I think we are all better served by working it to our advantage rather than violently attacking it. It's here in large part because most of us want it here, as it is.

Of course the political method is the preferred method of peaceful change, but we're not talking about peaceful, democratic operation of the Republic, we're talking about despots and tyrants attempting to ignore, repeal or replace our fundamental natural human rights who refuse to cede power and who attempt to rule illegitimately in violation of the restraints of the Constitution on such activities.

Force of arms is always the final option and never to be undertaken lightly, but in order for it to remain a viable check and balance on despotism, the citizenry must always be adequately armed. Despots know that disarming the people is the first necessary step in consolidating their power, so that's what they always try to do first (or perhaps second).

Therefore, any politician or other person who presumes to attempt to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms is ipso facto an enemy of the Constitution and the Republic who must be neutralized as quickly as possible to prevent even the smallest of intrusions upon the right that secures all of our other rights. The right to keep and bear arms secures all our other rights because only those who are in the end capable of defending the exercise of their rights against intrusion from whatever source can truly say that they have "rights."

In the UK, they do not have rights, they have permissions, all of which may be modified or withdrawn at the whims and caprices of their "elected" representatives or indeed their monarch. The US Constitution forbids this by placing the rights of the individual above the authority of the State, making the State subservient to the People rather than the People the vassals of the State.

The RKBA is the ultimate guard of our liberties, which is why it's so very important, and so far above and beyond the power or authority of our elected officials and government bureaucrats.

[Seth]

The biggest threat to my 'freedom' isnt the government its my neighbour, luckily for me this threat is not as great as it could be (ie having Seth as a neighbour)

No government in history has every killed anyone, its always neighbour turning on neighbour and its a far better idea when this happens they don't have a machine gun to do it with

God, what an idiotic and ignorant argument...