Steve, having an armed populace is the first line of defense? It should be the last. There is a reason why we have a military with professional soldiers.
The USA is too large of a country to defend with a military the size of ours. That is why I point to an armed populace as the first line of defense.
Think about it for a minute. Which is easier to do:
1) Invade a country where the citizens are not allowed firearms. 2) Invade a country where the citizens are allowed firearms.
My money bets that number one is a far easier battle.
Also, as Apreche pointed out, if you are unarmed how do you defend yourself against the government?
Are you going to enact "strict car regulation laws" to prevent speeders? Ex-felons are not allowed to own a car. You aren't allowed to own a car if you got a speeding ticket. We need background checks for car purchases. Are you going to enact "strict food laws" to prevent poisoned food from entering supermarkets? Background checks for supermarket managers. Ban of non-organic foods. How about "strict garbage laws"? Sounds silly doesn't it?
No, because we have laws that are designed to prohibit people from speeding, to prohibit people from selling tainted food and medicine, and to prohibit people from burning garbage on their lawns. All these laws weigh safety against individual liberties. There is a rational basis to restrict some people from legally obtaining guns, and it comes about from the same sort of analysis: "What is more important to society: the right of a felon to legally obtain a gun, or the safety of the other people that make up the society?" The federal government decided before you were born that the safety of the other people in society was more important than the felon's right to legally obtain a gun.
Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. There was a time when people thought that there should be no restrictions on the selling of tainted food. There was a time when people thought that there should be no restrictions on employers working children 16 hours a day. Society has decided that it's in everyone's interest to impose restrictions that were earlier thought to be areas in which people could act with absolute liberty. Once the liberties were weighed against safety, safety won.
I understand the point that such people may obtain guns by extra-legal means. That shouldn't mean that we give up and make it easy for them to obtain a gun legally. At least it's a little more difficult and therefore just a little more unlikely that such a person may be successful in obtaining a gun.
No, but I do have the liberty to own a gun. Those crimes aren't constitutionally protected. Gun ownership is.
As I said earlier, it's unsettled as to whether the liberty to own a gun is a constitutionally protected individual right. The Miller case, the only time the post-incorporation SCOTUS has specifically addressed the issue, said that it was not.
Even if it is, there are all kinds of constitutional rights that are restricted for safety purposes. Can you sacrifice an animal in the public square? Can you make your children handle snakes? No. But what about your constitutional right to practice your religion? Sorry, but the government has decided that those actions may be restricted for the safety of the other people in society. How about falsely advertising a product? What about your freedom of speech to falsely advertise? Sorry, the government says you can't do that. How about your if car is stopped in by the cops? What about your right to not have it searched unless the cops have a warrant? Sorry, the government has decided that they can search your car if they have probable cause that you're a drug dealer.
It's surprising that so many could become so agitated abouy gun rights at a time when the government is reading your emails, your medical records, your bank statements, listening to your phone calls, trying people in secret courts, denying habeas corpus, denying people the right to counsel, denying people the right to see the evidence against them or to question witnesses, and torturing people.
How about the government placing your name on a no-fly list without telling you and then making it incredibly difficult for you to remove your name from the list? That's an unacceptable weighing of liberty v. safety.
Joe, Are you saying that gun ownership leads to murder, rape and stealing?
Of course not. I'm saying that many things some people may have thought of as liberties at one time are prohibited by society for the protection of other people's safety. The weighing of safety v. liberty happens all the time by government at all levels and it's a waste of outrage to become all exercised about a few little gun restrictions. The government is currently fighting against some other liberties we should be more concerned about.
It's surprising that so many could become so agitated about gun rights at a time when the government is reading your emails, your medical records, your bank statements, listening to your phone calls, trying people in secret courts, denying habeas corpus, denying people the right to counsel, denying people the right to see the evidence against them or to question witnesses, and torturing people.
That is exactly why we are agitated about the government taking away our gun rights!
If Elian Gonzalez's family had guns would Janet Reno have sent in the goon squad to deport him?
If the Branch Davidians did not have guns do you think Janet Reno would not have sent in the goon squad?
Personal gun ownership is the cornerstone of individual freedom in the USA. Of course American court system judge would be rule against it being an individual right! They are on the side of the government not the people!
Hehe... could you imagine a war between geeks and the government? People would be fighting in cosplays... lol. I>I-I33P, 73I-I G33I<5 1337 5I<1I_I_5!</p>
Psh, we would hack those fuckers so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.
Here's how I see it. I own a gun. I have in the past held a concealed carry permit, which was good in 30-something states. I never carried while I was allowed to. It scared the living shit out of me to be honest. I believe, in my humble opinion, that I am the perfect gun owner. I don't want to pull a gun, I don't want to shoot anyone on accident, and I don't want to take a human life. I *don't* want the responsibility that carrying a firearm brings with it. HOWEVER... If I were in public, and an innocent was being harmed, i.e. assaulted by someone with a knife or other hand held weapon, or someone was trying to kidnap someone, or trying to turn a human into a statistic or victim, I would have no qualms with presenting the weapon, pulling the trigger if the criminal persisted in the violent act, and then presenting myself to the authorities as soon as they arrived on the scene. I'm not a superhero, I'm not a vigilante, and I don't romanticize the weapons I own. Those want power the most, least deserve it. Those who are afraid of the power that is rightfully theirs, those are the ones who need to attempt to use that power in the most responsible way possible.
Just so everyone is aware, I'm *not* a small person. I'm 6'5" and weight 275. Some of that is fat, but not all. If I were carrying, and someone pulled a weapon on me, I would be more likely to beat them to death with my pistol than to shoot them with it. I'm not worried about me. I am worried about a soccer mom, and I am worried about the safety of children. I'm worried about the safety of those least about to secure their own safety. Anyone that would be willing to harm someone who is unable to protect themselves, well, I don't recognize them as human beings. They are like silhouette targets in that they have the shape of a human, but that is about it.
And let's not forget who the first major modern proponent of gun control was... Hitler.
That doesn't mean no gun control is good. It means that sensible control is best.
The USA is too large of a country to defend with a military the size of ours. That is why I point to an armed populace as the first line of defense.
Think about it for a minute. Which is easier to do:
1) Invade a country where the citizens are not allowed firearms. 2) Invade a country where the citizens are allowed firearms.
My money bets that number one is a far easier battle.
Also, as Apreche pointed out, if you are unarmed how do you defend yourself against the government?
You guys read my post wrong. I didn't take issue with the population being allowed guns. In fact, I think it's better to be able to own a gun than not. The part I was disagreeing with was the people being the first line of defense, as opposed to the last. So what does the military do, sit back and chill while the citizens are forced to defend their towns?
What about it? I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at there. That would probably qualify as the last line of defense then, if a country's citizens are defending themselves against their own military.
I know that many feel as though they are tough-as-nails, self reliant pioneers who have no need for any sort of help from government whatsoever, but there are some areas of life in which government regulation is a good thing. We're currently seeing the results of the self-reliance philosophy: no help for Katrina survivors, an assault on social security that thankfully failed, and a lack of accountability and control of important qualitycontrols for food and drugs.
Yes, Joe, government regulation can be a good thing. The problems arise when government is given carte blanche, such as when it controlled(s) entire industries as a monopoly (postal service, airlines, telephone companies, health care in other nations), and when it attempts to do too much. Government will never be as efficient as private industry because there have to be watchers watching the watchers who are watching the watchmen watch other watchmen. Just watch.
No help for Katrina survivors: Louisiana and specifically New Orleans has been under Democratic control for 40 years. Why did the compassionate party do nothing in their own jurisdiction to protect against the fairly predictable eventuality of a large hurricane? For that matter, why was poverty, homelessness, and welfare so rampant in a city where Democrats held control for so long?
Social security: You're probably right. The problem is that the federal government has bankrupted that system, especially under Chief Cuckoo Bananas. Our generation (you know, those of us who are 40 or so years younger than you) are starting to get antsy about government control of our security nets. The private accounts/stock investment fiasco was a knee-jerk reaction to that; still, how are we going to fix it?
FDA: Good job, regulatory government. Paxil approved, recalled. Celebrex approved, recalled. Prempro approved, increases risk of breast cancer. The FDA has a lot of wins in its column, but a lot of losses, too. I don't see how the FDA can be a neutral agency when drug companies lobby.
The problem has never been that government should not be involved. It's that government is simply too large, it's programs too bloated, too inefficient, too strapped by red tape, too politically motivated (look at the FCC), too power-hungry. Pork barrelling and budget-stacking is still prevalent. Once passed, a tax is never repealed. Once created, a government agency is rarely dismantled. Government only grows larger and more intrusive, no matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge.
The framers wanted a non-intrusive central government that existed solely for national defense and as an intermediary administrator coordinating cooperation between state governments. Today, states rights are next to extinct, and the enumerated powers are all but quashed. The federal government has become a goliath, the largest employer in the United States by far. Government has its hands in everything except the solvency business.
"There ought to be limits to freedom." Governor George W Bush, May 21, 1999
Aren't you the one who has been saying the same thing?
There's plenty of space in theNorthwest Territoriesif you want to live without any government restrictions, but if you want to live in society, you'll find all sorts of restrictions on your liberty. Do you have the liberty to murder, rape, and steal? Do you have the liberty to burn garbage on your front lawn? Do you have the liberty to drive your car at 100 miles an hour through a school zone? Do you have the liberty to take your gun and start firing randomly in the public square? Do you have the liberty to sell poison disguised as food?
I don't think anyone that's not currently a pure Anarchist stands for absolute, unrestricted freedom. If you read the article, GWB didn't want people to be able to make fun of him during his campaign. I'm certainly for that sort of freedom.
The problem with the Franklin quote is that society, by its very nature, balances liberty and security all the time. Merely being a member of society means that you give up at least some freedom.
I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of this topic, how far do you let the government step on you before tell them to stop. How far is too far? I think Jason put it best when he said.
government regulation can be a good thing. The problems arise when government is given carte blanche, such as when it controlled(s) entire industries as a monopoly (postal service, airlines, telephone companies, health care in other nations), and when it attempts to do too much. Government will never be as efficient as private industry because there have to be watchers watching the watchers who are watching the watchmen watch other watchmen. Just watch.
Joe, the actual quote taken from the original printing is this:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
Note the word essential, I'm sure he didn't mean anarchy. Part of the fault is that the quote has been changed so much that it is hard to find the original, which I didn't have until Kilarney challenged me about it and I researched it.
Comments
Think about it for a minute. Which is easier to do:
1) Invade a country where the citizens are not allowed firearms.
2) Invade a country where the citizens are allowed firearms.
My money bets that number one is a far easier battle.
Also, as Apreche pointed out, if you are unarmed how do you defend yourself against the government?
Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. There was a time when people thought that there should be no restrictions on the selling of tainted food. There was a time when people thought that there should be no restrictions on employers working children 16 hours a day. Society has decided that it's in everyone's interest to impose restrictions that were earlier thought to be areas in which people could act with absolute liberty. Once the liberties were weighed against safety, safety won.
I understand the point that such people may obtain guns by extra-legal means. That shouldn't mean that we give up and make it easy for them to obtain a gun legally. At least it's a little more difficult and therefore just a little more unlikely that such a person may be successful in obtaining a gun. As I said earlier, it's unsettled as to whether the liberty to own a gun is a constitutionally protected individual right. The Miller case, the only time the post-incorporation SCOTUS has specifically addressed the issue, said that it was not.
Even if it is, there are all kinds of constitutional rights that are restricted for safety purposes. Can you sacrifice an animal in the public square? Can you make your children handle snakes? No. But what about your constitutional right to practice your religion? Sorry, but the government has decided that those actions may be restricted for the safety of the other people in society. How about falsely advertising a product? What about your freedom of speech to falsely advertise? Sorry, the government says you can't do that. How about your if car is stopped in by the cops? What about your right to not have it searched unless the cops have a warrant? Sorry, the government has decided that they can search your car if they have probable cause that you're a drug dealer.
It's surprising that so many could become so agitated abouy gun rights at a time when the government is reading your emails, your medical records, your bank statements, listening to your phone calls, trying people in secret courts, denying habeas corpus, denying people the right to counsel, denying people the right to see the evidence against them or to question witnesses, and torturing people.
How about the government placing your name on a no-fly list without telling you and then making it incredibly difficult for you to remove your name from the list? That's an unacceptable weighing of liberty v. safety. Of course not. I'm saying that many things some people may have thought of as liberties at one time are prohibited by society for the protection of other people's safety. The weighing of safety v. liberty happens all the time by government at all levels and it's a waste of outrage to become all exercised about a few little gun restrictions. The government is currently fighting against some other liberties we should be more concerned about.
If Elian Gonzalez's family had guns would Janet Reno have sent in the goon squad to deport him?
If the Branch Davidians did not have guns do you think Janet Reno would not have sent in the goon squad?
Personal gun ownership is the cornerstone of individual freedom in the USA. Of course American court system judge would be rule against it being an individual right! They are on the side of the government not the people!
If govt agents try forcing their way into my home to take my kid though...
Just so everyone is aware, I'm *not* a small person. I'm 6'5" and weight 275. Some of that is fat, but not all. If I were carrying, and someone pulled a weapon on me, I would be more likely to beat them to death with my pistol than to shoot them with it. I'm not worried about me. I am worried about a soccer mom, and I am worried about the safety of children. I'm worried about the safety of those least about to secure their own safety. Anyone that would be willing to harm someone who is unable to protect themselves, well, I don't recognize them as human beings. They are like silhouette targets in that they have the shape of a human, but that is about it.
And let's not forget who the first major modern proponent of gun control was... Hitler.
That doesn't mean no gun control is good. It means that sensible control is best.
More seriously, You guys read my post wrong. I didn't take issue with the population being allowed guns. In fact, I think it's better to be able to own a gun than not. The part I was disagreeing with was the people being the first line of defense, as opposed to the last. So what does the military do, sit back and chill while the citizens are forced to defend their towns?
No help for Katrina survivors: Louisiana and specifically New Orleans has been under Democratic control for 40 years. Why did the compassionate party do nothing in their own jurisdiction to protect against the fairly predictable eventuality of a large hurricane? For that matter, why was poverty, homelessness, and welfare so rampant in a city where Democrats held control for so long?
Social security: You're probably right. The problem is that the federal government has bankrupted that system, especially under Chief Cuckoo Bananas. Our generation (you know, those of us who are 40 or so years younger than you) are starting to get antsy about government control of our security nets. The private accounts/stock investment fiasco was a knee-jerk reaction to that; still, how are we going to fix it?
FDA: Good job, regulatory government. Paxil approved, recalled. Celebrex approved, recalled. Prempro approved, increases risk of breast cancer. The FDA has a lot of wins in its column, but a lot of losses, too. I don't see how the FDA can be a neutral agency when drug companies lobby.
The problem has never been that government should not be involved. It's that government is simply too large, it's programs too bloated, too inefficient, too strapped by red tape, too politically motivated (look at the FCC), too power-hungry. Pork barrelling and budget-stacking is still prevalent. Once passed, a tax is never repealed. Once created, a government agency is rarely dismantled. Government only grows larger and more intrusive, no matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge.
The framers wanted a non-intrusive central government that existed solely for national defense and as an intermediary administrator coordinating cooperation between state governments. Today, states rights are next to extinct, and the enumerated powers are all but quashed. The federal government has become a goliath, the largest employer in the United States by far. Government has its hands in everything except the solvency business.
This article is all about my earlier "best line of defense" line. Read it and comment.
Governor George W Bush, May 21, 1999
Source.
The problem with the Franklin quote is that society, by its very nature, balances liberty and security all the time. Merely being a member of society means that you give up at least some freedom.
I think Jason put it best when he said.