By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 08 January 2013
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
 

Who are the "current wielders of legitimate force in America"? Well they're the people, or at least they were initially suppose to be.

The state is not an exception of the people and it's subservient to ALL people, at least in a republic this is the case. Force is not acceptable at all, unless as a reactionary step, as per the definiton of the non-aggression axiom. This includes the state, specific groups, etc, etc. If a group initiates force then it is an enemy, and that includes the initiation of force by the state.

This is not what i was disputing. You were saying that if the American people were fighting an armed revolt, it would be for "better" reasons than other peoples have in the past, and that therefore they would be more trustworthy than other peoples in armed rebellion. I'm stating that if Americans are so trustworthy, than the government should be trustworthy, and therefore we shouldn't need weapons to use against the government if we're so righteous and responsible in the first place.

Americans are either responsible wielders of force, or they're not. The alternative is to say *some* Americans would be more responsible users of force than others, which is very slippery ground to tread on.

Isn't tht EXACTLY what you are argueing though?

I'm guessing for example you don't want gun bans to extend to the military.

Where i was going with that was that this largely boils down to the politics of "who do we trust?" He's trying to make the claim that Americans are trustworthy with use of force, but he really means "certain," Americans, which is what i'm trying to draw out here.

Isn't it just the same logic as a nuclear deterrent though?

If gun ownership from people you can trust prevents actions by the people you can't, the you want to spread gun ownership.  (Hence for example, how the US has extremely low rates of home invasions in which the person is home.)

 

As it is, i think the state is... 2% of all crimes committed are commited by concealed carry gun owners.  Really any sort of gun legislation should be more along those lines.  Not trying to actually ban anything related to guns.. but trying to increase concealed carry owners and replicating what makes them safe gun owners.

Restricting legitamite gun ownership via gun bans and prohibition is likely going to have little to no effect on violence and an increase in home invasions, violent crimes etc.

 

You know what would lower shootings a lot?   Alchohol Prohibition.  It would' lower a lot of other violent crimes too... and unlike guns... beer doesn't really have ANY useful applications outside poisoning yourself.  Even when used recreationally it causes harm.

 

Then again, i guess not.  Since the blackmarket for beer would boom and then so would violence.