mistermack wrote:Cunt wrote:
I noticed that you still haven't answered as to who should say who can and cannot bear arms.
Whose job is it to protect you, mistermack? Do you take responsibility for them bearing arms?
Fuck me, it's not rocket science. It's tiresome to have to explain the bleedn obvious but here goes.
We have police forces, and armed services.
And do they protect YOU, and by you I mean you, individually. Are they around all the time to make sure that nobody mugs you, knifes you or breaks into your home while you're there to beat you up and rob you of all your stuff?
No, I don't think they are. That's because they are not there for the purpose of protecting you, as an individual. In fact, you will find that they have absolutely no legal obligation to protect you, as an individual, even if a bunch of neo-nazi thugs has you bent over a park bench in plain view and are serially buggering you.
Sir Robert Peel said it best in his Nine Principles:
Peel’s Nine Principles of Policing:
1 The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2 The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3 Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4 The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5 Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6 Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7 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.
8 Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9 The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Number seven is of the most interest in this case. I suggest you read and understand it because it espouses the most fundamentally understood principle of policing, particularly in the UK, but to a large extent here in the US, both by police and civilians.
This is the fact that the police power is not inherent in the police, it is granted to the police by the People, who hold all authority, and it's not an exclusive grant in most cases (though it is in some), it's a co-equal grant, as Peel points out.
What this means in practical effect is that the police are not, and were never intended to be your personal bodyguards. They are not there to protect you, they are there to protect society as a whole by enforcing the law. It is not their duty or within their capability to protect each and every individual citizen against any particular crime, and this fact has been pointed out by many courts on occasions where people have tried to sue the police for failing to act in a given circumstance. Such complaints always lose in court.
Therefore, it should be pretty obvious that the person responsible for your personal safety is you, and no one else.
Given the fact that the authority to provide for your own safety is an inherent, unalienable individual right (and duty to society, as Peel says), it is likewise obvious that you, the individual, have an equally unalienable, inherent right to keep and bear arms so that you can effectively defend yourself, and your society, at need...since nobody else is tasked with doing this for you.
That's where arms belong.
This is based in the delusional and servile attitude that's been bred into UK citizens over generations of slavery to their government masters that they do not have full authority to police society themselves and that someone else will keep them safe. This is a delusion that gets citizens of the UK victimized by criminals at a substantially higher rate than US citizens are victimized.
And then there's the loss of individual liberty caused by all of the draconian social regulations that the UK fruitlessly tries to impose to maintain civil order in a system where individuals are not only rendered helpless against criminality by being disarmed, but where they are actually punished for resisting criminals on the asinine and insane proposition that criminals involved in burglary and robbery have a right not to be harmed.
It's a flatly insane culture, the whole lot of them.
If it became impossible to recruit those, the public would be forced to organise part time forces.
Over here, that's called "the Militia," and by law, every able-bodied male between 18 and 45 is automatically a member of the Unorganized Militia and can be called to duty in the Organized Militia with the stroke of a pen. And one of the functions of our 2nd Amendment is to preserve the ability of members of the Unorganized Militia to report for duty rapidly with their own arms and ammunition, which they are familiar and competent with. This permits the government to put together an effective force to maintain civil order or repel invaders in a very, very short time. As opposed to the UK, where there are limited numbers of weapons available to arm the civilian populace with. That's why during WWII, Americans sent millions of their weapons to the UK for the Home Guard to use, because the restrictions on civilian ownership placed the nation at risk of invasion by the Nazis, and the UK could not find sufficient weapons to arm their own citizenry without our help.
As for police duty, the same problem obtains. If only the citizens of the UK recognized that they already have the inherent, unalienable right to police themselves, they would be far better off. But they have become a servile and cowardly culture, afraid to provide for their own safety and utterly dependent upon the government to protect them, which of course the government cannot possibly do.
I can't see that happening any time soon.
Short-sightedness and head-in-the-sand stupidity are no substitute for clear thinking and reason.
They are selected for suitability and trained.
Not so much, as I hear it. Didn't we just have a thread on some ignoramus with a badge lawlessly harassing a member here who was lawfully taking photos on a public street?
It's the same all over the world, so I can't see why you asked the question.
Almost everywhere except the United States and perhaps Switzerland, sadly. Your argument is just a fallacious appeal to common practice.
I'm saying ban private firearms.
What you're really saying is "I'm so afraid of my law-abiding neighbors that I'm willing to allow them to be killed and victimized by criminals so that I can live in the delusion that I personally will be safer if they are not allowed arms for self-defense."
Fortunately, we over here in the US kicked that sort of delusional, servile thinking out more than two centuries ago and restored our culture to sanity and reason...and freedom.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
