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.


Additionally i'd point out that a lot of people don't trust, and really can't trust "legitamite" users of guns in the form of the Police and such.  

In lots of areas police are more antagonistic then helpful, have an unfortunite tendency to shoot first and often will intentionally avoid entering private residences until AFTER the crime has finished.

That and well, the old statement that's oddly true... that the police have no obligation to actually help people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

 

I once had a domestic violence dispute happen in my store... where the phone call ended with the phone cutting off because the caller got attacked, and the phone got thrown across the room.

An hour and a half later the police called my store to ask if they were still there. 

This is a neighborhood that cops patrol routinley... usually their tends to be a police car parked right across the street in the 7-11 parking lot.

Most people there own their own guns because they don't trust the police to actually help, and don't even trust them to not shoot them if they do show up.

This tends to be an Obama stronghold area too for those who seem to think only republicans are pro gun ownership.  



Poorer areas with more crime have more Police Presense but oddly actually can't trust the police to actually go and help these people when they need it.

 

In general completely ignoring all other arguements, it would be extremely inadvisiable to inact any gun control until you fix law enforcement in poorer urban areas.  As legal gun ownership is practically all the saftey net a lot of people have in areas.

 

 

This is why a lot of people see Newton as a reason to buy a gun.   Assuming you are lucky enough to have a police department that protects you, it still takes them time to get there... while you are already there.