|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 25, 2009, 08:12 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2009, 09:14 AM | #27 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
February 25, 2009, 09:37 AM | #28 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
More problemmatic, a view that some civil liberties are necessary to the state of american liberty while some others are superfluous is gravely flawed. It pretends a knowledge which is improbable, and as a proposition is categorically impossible. A fellow might argue that the first amendment is superfluous and americans would still not have tyranny, reduced liberty, without it. It seems unlikely we would consider a government that denied those liberties anything but tyrannical, and each liberty is a strand in the tapestry of general liberty. Quote:
I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Whether a dicatorship is popular doesn't bear on whether it commits atrocities or whether the presence of armed resistence would temper its actions. That ascendant communists pre-emptively disarm potentially non-compliant populations indicates their view that an armed population would impede their control. Quote:
Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba. Batista wasn't a fascist. He was vehemently opposed by the fascists. The only party that labels any and all opponents fascists? That's right. The misconception of communist party government as some sort of intermediate condition between formal constitutional liberty and tyranny is not well founded. Since cubans risking death on leaky boats and innertubes is a trait peculiar to this island prison outpost of a conspicuous tyranny as created and enforced by Castro, it can only serve to slander hose who opposed him by wondering whether they would be as grotesque. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; February 25, 2009 at 10:07 AM. |
|||||
February 25, 2009, 10:14 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
On the counterpoint - the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the ultimate overthrow of the Soviet system was done by a sea change in the populace. That sea change was accompanied by a refusal of the armed branches of those governments to use force against the populace.
In China, the armed forces (with troops brought from areas away from Beijing), were willing to use military force. Since many democracies exist without an armed populace and major insurrections have occured without armed rebellion - one should be careful about generalizations. And of course, we return to the horrible conundrum that many of the most ardent supporters of the 2nd Amend. are quite ok with violating many other civil liberties. I opine that the BOR are all equally important and simply stating that the 2nd is predominant is not a winning argument. There was no armed insurrection against slavery or the Japanese interrment.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 25, 2009, 10:36 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Glenn, I think fidelity to history is important if we are to make historical assertions
Quote:
Similarly, to suggest that the soviet system was a product of popular support, and that it folded when that support evanesced is ahistorical. While russian nationalism united russians during the german invasion and was generally supportive of soviet expansion, the support of the general population who were subject to a formal policy of rule by terror, is very hard to find. None of this should indicate that popular support can't affect the course of some governments, or that armed insurrection or its threat is the first, best or only means by which a population can secure a greater degree of liberty. However, that it can and has done that seems difficult to deny.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
February 25, 2009, 10:46 AM | #31 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 25, 2009, 10:48 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
My point was the major overturns of what were seen as tyrannical governments was accomplished without major armed insurrections. There was no support for a continuation of the Shah's government with his heirs. The armed forces wouldn't have responded to use force against the people or so I read some reports. That he didn't give a futile order begs the question.
Similarly, in the USSR - it was reported that orders to use armed force wouldn't have been successful. The armed forces were not going to try to enforce order against the populace in this case.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 25, 2009, 11:42 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2009, 12:26 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
A subtle point and it may start a flame war for which I apologize. My point on slavery was that the general population of slave owner states were, in general, quite OK with slavery. Their ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amend. did not automatically transfer to a respect for liberty for the slaves.
Thus, the contention that the 2nd and firearms ownership almost automatically guarantees a respect for liberty doesn't hold. Private firearms ownership can be a buffer to prevent genocide (suggested by studies that indicate that genocide occurs against the weak). But it doesn't gurantee that a firearms owning majority is necessarily a respector of liberty.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 25, 2009, 12:29 PM | #35 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
An armed populace provides two things: protection against our government, and, protection against invaders.
Currently, we have border squabbles with Mexico based drug gangs, police, and factions of the armed forces. They are armed with automatic weapons, and, the people on those borders should have the right to respond in kind. The Swiss government has proven the wisdom of this position. The Swiss haven't been invaded in 800 years, and, made it through two world wars and a bunch of other stuff in the last couple hundred years. Why? Shooting is their national past time. The joke goes: Quote:
So you have two driving points: Primarily the intent is to protect the country from invaders. Terrorists, drug gangs, etc. Police aren't armed for this sort of situation, and, what are the folks in Arizona going to do? Wait for an underarmed police force to come out and get shot, while they are facing drug gangs with AK 47's? Apparently it's not politically correct, nor is it Constitutionally correct to have the National Guard armed, and sitting on the border, but, that maybe what it takes, if we ever really get serious about stopping illegal immigration, and protect the people that own property on our borders. Last edited by Socrates; February 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM. |
|
February 25, 2009, 01:19 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2009, 01:36 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
We should be able to discuss this without a "flame war".
Quote:
I think we can fairly generalise that a government that has real regard for its citizens' liberty will also provide to citizens the means by which to exercise and protect that liberty. The means by which we institutionalise that regard for liberty involves legal protection of rights to vote, speak, worship, assemble, bear arms, freedom from warrantless search, own property, have access to courts, etc. When one of those rights is diminished, it may not be the only one diminished. By way of example, I was and still am a vehement opponent of McCain-Feingold election financing "reform" for its limitations on the means by which people speak and are heard. Like a character in a Twilight Zone episode, McCain got what he wanted then was bitten by it. We have a phalanx of rights; carelessness or indifference about one area of rights is unlikely to be good for the rest.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
February 25, 2009, 02:27 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Oh, I agree - my cynical mind sometimes freezes on cliched rhetoric and some of the RKBA argument does that. Not to be a contrarian. Some of the rhetoric does seem to imply what I said. I note that we here are more nuanced.
About the Swiss - see that's my point. It is nice to argue that the Swiss military system precluded a German invasion. That was part of it. The Swiss had resistance plans. One major part was the destruction of tunnels leading to Italy. Their destruction would have greatly hampered German military plans. They also mined roads and plants that would have been to the advantage of the Germans to seize. Next, the Swiss - in a horrible situation - did cooperate with the Germans to a very large extent. Thus, invading Switzerland was contemplated but not needed according to most German analyses. No one doubted that the Wermacht could have taken Switzerland at some cost. The same analysis was made of the invasion of Sweden. Cooperation was high and the cost wasn't worth it. Portraying the Swiss system as the sole protector of their country is easily refuted and if one makes this argument for the RKBA, you'd better understand the nuances. If we also talk about persuasion, the chances of a foreign invasion in the classic sense of the USA is nil. One might argue that criminal activity is an 'invasion' but since most folks think of those issues as a need for increased law enforcement as compared to civilians in Hummers with M2s - that's not going to be a convincing argument. If this discussion is to provide a rationale for the RKBA with examples, one really needs to think of ones that have some realistic bite. I think of the principles of persuasion and again mention that a silly argument later negates even strong ones. The strong practical arguments as I see them (as compared to some theoretic statement) are: 1. Personal protection against crime 2. Personal and neighborhood protection against major social disruption like Katrina - but you need to stay away from racist rants (which we have seen here before). 3. Protection against racism and related terrorism (like the Deacons for Defense story). 4. Protection against an elected tyranny - but if that argument is only from the right - let's have guns to overthrow the government to put in a regressive right wing government and save our guns(the usual RKBA revolution call) - that isn't going to fly.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 25, 2009, 03:19 PM | #39 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Sorry, I had to go to work and missed a lot of this. Good comments Glenn.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In each and every case the armed citizenry did nothing and it was our democratic institutions that undid the wrongs. Either the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches righted the wrongs. In every case and never were armed citizens either a deterrent to government overstepping their bounds or a remedy to an ongoing infraction. It hasn't happened and won't because our democratic institutions will do it lawfully and peacefully. Even as recently as Katrina when Mayor Nagin unlawfully confiscated firearms from NO law-abiding residents did the "armed citizens" stop it or right it. The courts did by injunction. Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 25, 2009 at 03:26 PM. |
|||||
February 25, 2009, 03:40 PM | #40 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 25, 2009 at 04:04 PM. |
|||
February 25, 2009, 04:46 PM | #41 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
Quote:
Police response time is NOT something I'm willing to bet my life on, and no one else should, either. If you employee enough police to have a 'safe' society, you don't have a free one. In rural areas firearms are pretty much the first, and only line of defense, and, the police are cleanup crews. Quote:
Number one I address above. 2. I've brought this up before: The Rodney King Riots, or organized crime spree, was an excellent example of the police NOT being able to protect the public from the L.A. gangs redistributing wealth, by robbery. That said, Louisiana is the ultimate castle state, since their system of laws protect the right for the property owner to protect his property from invaders, including police, with deadly force. Katrina does show that given that situation, before moving in, the police are, either for their own safety, or, from their own beliefs, going to grab every gun they know is present, indeed leaving the people defenseless. The real shock is that the police chief is still in a position of power. 3. Slavery has caused the majority HUGE losses of freedom. It's truly a loose loose situation. Oppression causes actions that lost our freedom, by expanding the government's involvement, and scope, with absurd cases like Heart of Atlanta, and the expansion of the Commerce Clause to a point where the Federal government has Jurisdiction over everything, and states have no rights. 4. I'm not sure the right to bear arms is only protected from the right. Keep in mind that currently I think Obama is acting more like a Republican then the prior Republican president did. Concepts such as balanced budgets, and reducing the debt? In fact, it appears that the two party system is a strawman, designed to keep us at each others throats, when, in fact, it's become a one party Oligarchy. A Republican is, after all, nothing more then a Democrat that's been mugged. I'm also wondering if our current president may not have a MUCH better understanding of what the Constitution is about then I gave him credit for, and many others. Since this is a 2A discussion, and, he did graduate from Harvard with honors, and, he's been a consultant Con Law professor, he might not have swallowed the common law Harvard school view of 2A. In fact, once elected, the presidency is set for life, and, like some Supreme Court judges, his ultimate direction may end up considerably different from the party that put him into power. As for the Swiss, I'm not willing to let that argument go. While I understand the other angles, and the cost benefit of invading certain countries, it brings up a number of points. Japan was, or at least the quote is made, that the idea of invading American was unwise, due to the number of weapons in our country, it's distance away, and the type of land, and, cover. I guess Yamamoto, or some of the Japanese generals studied our history, and, realized the problems of fighting a guerilla populace in the U.S. TG: For some reason, the war vets I've known, or at least many of them, think that the protection of family/land/country should be only in a military that is not supposed to operate in our country at all. "No standing army" means just that. I suggest that the Swiss model is much healthier, and, that the above picture you post with apprehension in support of your position to limit gun ownership is the exact reason we should have no limits. If firearms are in every home, which they nearly are now, thanks to the latest buying spree, they start to loose their status as 'illegal'. The Swiss have a healthy, out in the open, legal right to carry a firearm. The government sponsors shooting, complete with alcohol, on a regular basis. Instead of having to sneak around my state, concealing my firearms, and afraid to let any of my neighbors, or co-workers now I'm a 2A advocate, I could have a life where those things are just things you do. Instead of having to hide your rifle, it's just like going skiing, it's part of the culture. A healthy respect for firearms, and their place in our history and society is a freedom we seem to have lost. I studied Politics at a very liberal school. At the end of the day, I came to this conclusion: The country with the biggest guns, and strongest military, gets to write the laws, both international and domestic. Having those guns is of no use, unless you are willing to use them. Since Japan, we have not used our abilities, and, the results have been lost wars. Vietnam, Korea, etc. are examples of putting ourselves into situations the Japanese would have been smart enough to avoid, or fight differently. Fighting a satellite country, on the border of a country with 1.2 billion people, and probably that many Mosin Nagants, and AK's, doesn't seem to be the wisest of moves, and, we've lost everytime. In short, our weapons systems have been the best, but, without the resolve to actually use them, we will be viewed as weak, and our ability to put the rules for international politics weakened. There is a tendency for people to forget the real threat of war, and, for nations to grow fat, complacent, and think they are invulnerable. I'm hoping that we will wake up, and realize that George doing it, is not the right answer for this issue. Last edited by Socrates; February 25, 2009 at 05:23 PM. |
||
February 25, 2009, 05:35 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
Taking the guns was bad. I'm not saying it wasn't. But enshrining the right to kill the police shows too little faith in the rule of law, and is bound to result in an anxious government seizing back the control they should never have surrendered. Mind you, I have no idea how Louisiana law works in practice. But that kind of law just sounds wrong. |
|
February 25, 2009, 05:50 PM | #43 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
The doctrine in law school was Louisiana law was from the Napoleonic Code, and, it placed property above people.
The reasoning is that a person is secure in his property, and, that the police should know that they must have the owners permission to enter, and therefore, since they know, if they are shot by accident, i.e. the property owner did not know they were/are police, the shooting is justified. It also means no civil suit, or criminal charges if you shoot to protect your house, or property. I don't have a problem with that. All it really means is the police have to be careful, and respectful. There is/was no excuse for their actions, other then they brought in out of staters to help, and, they brought their own law with them. |
February 25, 2009, 05:54 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Thanks for the explanation, Socrates.
|
February 25, 2009, 06:17 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I have to leave the field of debate for a day or two. So I won't read replies. The Japanese example is again an example of the gun world cliche that sounds good.
If you study the Japanese plans - and there are doctoral dissertations on it, I have one that was published - there were no plans ever to invade the United States. They did not even consider it to get to the point of worrying about our armed populace. The logistics of such an invasion were impossible for the Japanese and they knew it. Many of them knew they would lose the battle based on differential industrial capacity. They wanted to do two things: 1. Hope for a negotiated settlement to get a freer hand in China and other Asian areas. They were incensed that Western powers could establish sphere of influence and colonies in Asia but they couldn't. 2. Get some measure of respect and revenge (even if they lost the war) for Perry's forced opening of Japan and actions later by other Western powers. If they gave a crushing defeat Pearl Harbor to the USA and the Brits (Malaya, Singapore and the sinking of their two battleships on 12/8 IIRC), that would gain respect. The quotes about every blade of grass may not be real as some of the Hitler quotes. I might be wrong but the Swiss have a permit system for concealed weapons carry and the gun in every house is now under debate. BTW - I didn't say I was for limiting gun rights. That's a rhetorical trick in these kind of arguments. You're an anti, you are a Brady!! Nyah, Nyah. I was trying to present a reasoned view of the arguments that support the RKBA to avoid cliches that don't have strong evidential base. If we had a strong attack on the RKBA again, talking about invasion is the exact innoculation effect that would make the general populace outside the choir say the argument for the RKBA is not that valid. Note, I mean Swiss vs. Germans kind of invasion. Protection against crime has some traction in the surveys of gun attitudes. Invasion and insurrection don't. Reality of convincing argumentation may not go well with the choir. I prefer to be effective in argument.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 25, 2009, 06:22 PM | #46 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
The problem is, Police Chiefs, much like elected officials, and certain presidents, will say anything to their constituents, and, once they are in, they flip. I don't know the specifics of the Katrina police chief, heck, I don't even know how the
Napoleonic code has held up under attack in Louisiana. Long way away. Good example is the Orange County new police chief. She was elected, or appointed, by a Board who does represent their voters. The result has been, even though one of the key issues was maintaining CCW, she has attacked CCW holders, and, even has the force working against the board that appointed her. Apparently, at least in Kali, the election of a police chief is limited to a very few candidates, and, once in place, they are very difficult to remove. Sort of like a Federal judge. Since they control the issuance of ccw permits, this issue is a 2A issue. S |
February 25, 2009, 06:48 PM | #47 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Who or what says we cannot have a Standing Army? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||||||
February 25, 2009, 07:09 PM | #48 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 236
|
First it is good to have you back in the fray Tennessee Gentleman. I miss your insightful comments. With that said, back to the war of ideologies.
My response was to this initial this question: Quote:
Quote:
The people and how they viewed human rights. We changed. So I do not see that there was any tyrannical leader doing something that the populous determined had to be stopped. If anything, the fact that the President of the US could impose Martial Law and with Congress suspend the rights of some Americans, for what they perceived at the time as protecting Americans, could be seen as the armed populous not stopping tyrannical actions. EXCEPT, that the populous was in agreement. So there was no outcry. And to now look at the event years later and say because we paid reparations means our system did right. No. It means that we as Country recognized a wrong and offered a token as an olive branch to appease the masses that clamored for something to be done. Our system of judges, laws, police officers, congressmen, school board directors, teaches, professors, did nothing in the 1940s to stop it. My Geography professor in college served in the US military in the Pacific Theater while his parents lived in those camps. He was not bitter. Neither were his parents. Because in some cases, as they told me, the camps provided protection from vigil antes. Was it right? I wasn't there. I just know the outcry that followed 9/11. And how we had to reach out to a segment of our society to assure them that they would receive the same protection under the law as other Americans. I look forward to your opening the eyes of this wayward thinker concerning how the WWII incident with the Japanese fits the scenario of the basic argument. Now as for Katrina: Quote:
So a majority of the armed citizens were not opposed to what was being asked. So there was no tyrannical despot to unseat. And the fact that the judges later rectified the wrong doing only shows they are helpless to stop a tyrannical leader from imposing their will upon the people. Their power resides in the people following the law. When that ceases, judges are helpless. Both examples show that our system of government is retroactive when it comes to stopping a tyrannical leader. We use our military to stop tyrannical leaders in countries where the populous is either unable or unwilling to engage. But here, we react. The rule of law gets its power from the people. And it is the people who must stand behind that law for it to work. And when the people's values change, the law changes with it. P.S. I do have to give you credit for stirring picture. I will agree with you on that point.
__________________
The parting shot...
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson Last edited by kirpi97; February 25, 2009 at 07:17 PM. |
|||
February 25, 2009, 07:22 PM | #49 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|||
February 25, 2009, 10:38 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 236
|
Quote:
Darn. Now I have to find something else to disagree with. I love a good debate. It is something I miss. In today's world of debates. The example displayed by the media in our politicians is not debating. So I thank you kind sir. You are gentleman.
__________________
The parting shot...
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|