0
   

weapon + gun permit = self protection

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 04:29 am
Foofie wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Can a municipality mandate that anyone that gets a permit to carry a firearm also has to become a "deputy" of the law? That would cut down on many people just wanting to have a gun for warmth and comfort of one's persona.

The government has no right to insert itself as the dispenser of fundamental human rights. It has the right to prevent abuses, but no more than that.


I would think many municipalities will want to limit the number of guns on Main Street at any hour of the day. How that will be achieved, I do not know, but I believe that will be the goal of many citizens. Perhaps similar to the Old West, when a town was considered to have "arrived" to a certain degree of civility when guns had to be left at a Sheriff's office.

No. Forcible disarmament of citizens is only a sign of ignoring the inherent right of all living creatures to self-defense, as codified in the 2nd amendment. Hypothetically, if there were a government video camera on every street corner and in every home, and everyone's every movement analyzed by police computers and a huge staff of police for some sign of crime, there would be an immense reduction of crime, but it would both undesirable and a gross violation of civil rights. The mere fact that a policy reduces crime cannot be taken, in a vacuum, as indicating that the policy is desirable. I'm truly grateful that the Founders, and not you, were in charge of setting up our government.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 10:15 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Can a municipality mandate that anyone that gets a permit to carry a firearm also has to become a "deputy" of the law? That would cut down on many people just wanting to have a gun for warmth and comfort of one's persona.

The government has no right to insert itself as the dispenser of fundamental human rights. It has the right to prevent abuses, but no more than that.


I would think many municipalities will want to limit the number of guns on Main Street at any hour of the day. How that will be achieved, I do not know, but I believe that will be the goal of many citizens. Perhaps similar to the Old West, when a town was considered to have "arrived" to a certain degree of civility when guns had to be left at a Sheriff's office.

No. Forcible disarmament of citizens is only a sign of ignoring the inherent right of all living creatures to self-defense, as codified in the 2nd amendment. Hypothetically, if there were a government video camera on every street corner and in every home, and everyone's every movement analyzed by police computers and a huge staff of police for some sign of crime, there would be an immense reduction of crime, but it would both undesirable and a gross violation of civil rights. The mere fact that a policy reduces crime cannot be taken, in a vacuum, as indicating that the policy is desirable. I'm truly grateful that the Founders, and not you, were in charge of setting up our government.


Well, thank you for thinking I was alive 232 years ago. And, with that age comes my wisdom, I believe.

It is not a matter of disarming citizens, or taking away their right to self-protection. It is just that we, as a civil society, seem to have more violence than other western nations, so it is understandable that self-defense is a concern to some. However, that is only a band-aid, I believe, to the inherent problem of a less civil society than some other western nations. Yes, with high technology, I would like to see every street monitored. With computers, that have reached "the singularity" (of equal intelligence to humans), I would like to then then see analyzed what the monitors are observing. And, then inappropriate behavior could be dealt with.

But, like the old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I believe it is better to educate our children to the ways of civil behavior. For those identified "at risk" for future uncivil behavior, they would be given whatever appropriate therapy the social scientists were using at that time. I believe the social science profession is now in its infancy, compared to where it will be in a few decades. So, now some look to self-defense; in 50 years, the need may not be here?

What I also find interesting is that while municipal police forces are always looking for a non-lethal way to deal with violent, or potentially violent, situations, civilians oftentimes just want a gun for dealing with a violent situation? That smacks of the proverbial "Johnny one note" thinking, in my opinion. If professional police departments are looking for non-lethal technology to deal with violence, why are private citizens fixated at the gun stage of man's evolution of weapons?

You do know that many municipalities have laws against public drunkenness. Why is that not a right? Perhaps, drunkenness leads to inappropriate behavior sometimes? Does anyone see the volatile mix of gun carrying and drinking? Should the two be available for civilians?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:12 pm
Foofie wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Can a municipality mandate that anyone that gets a permit to carry a firearm also has to become a "deputy" of the law? That would cut down on many people just wanting to have a gun for warmth and comfort of one's persona.

The government has no right to insert itself as the dispenser of fundamental human rights. It has the right to prevent abuses, but no more than that.


I would think many municipalities will want to limit the number of guns on Main Street at any hour of the day. How that will be achieved, I do not know, but I believe that will be the goal of many citizens. Perhaps similar to the Old West, when a town was considered to have "arrived" to a certain degree of civility when guns had to be left at a Sheriff's office.

No. Forcible disarmament of citizens is only a sign of ignoring the inherent right of all living creatures to self-defense, as codified in the 2nd amendment. Hypothetically, if there were a government video camera on every street corner and in every home, and everyone's every movement analyzed by police computers and a huge staff of police for some sign of crime, there would be an immense reduction of crime, but it would both undesirable and a gross violation of civil rights. The mere fact that a policy reduces crime cannot be taken, in a vacuum, as indicating that the policy is desirable. I'm truly grateful that the Founders, and not you, were in charge of setting up our government.


...Yes, with high technology, I would like to see every street monitored. With computers, that have reached "the singularity" (of equal intelligence to humans), I would like to then then see analyzed what the monitors are observing. And, then inappropriate behavior could be dealt with.

This is certainly the most significant statement in your response. If you would like to see everyone monitored all the time in case a crime is committed or negative behavior occurs, then I suspect we have nothing to talk about.

Foofie wrote:
But, like the old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I believe it is better to educate our children to the ways of civil behavior. For those identified "at risk" for future uncivil behavior, they would be given whatever appropriate therapy the social scientists were using at that time.

My God! Re-education for potential future bad acts??? Did you ever hear of due process? What would these potential future criminals be charged with to force them to submit to this therapy???

Foofie wrote:
What I also find interesting is that while municipal police forces are always looking for a non-lethal way to deal with violent, or potentially violent, situations, civilians oftentimes just want a gun for dealing with a violent situation? That smacks of the proverbial "Johnny one note" thinking, in my opinion. If professional police departments are looking for non-lethal technology to deal with violence, why are private citizens fixated at the gun stage of man's evolution of weapons?

You do know that many municipalities have laws against public drunkenness. Why is that not a right? Perhaps, drunkenness leads to inappropriate behavior sometimes? Does anyone see the volatile mix of gun carrying and drinking? Should the two be available for civilians?

Let's get something straight. Do you believe in a right to self-defense or do you not? You say you don't want to take away peoples' right to self-protection, and then you follow it by saying that you can't see any difference between claiming a right to self-defense and claiming a right to public drunkenness???
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 01:37 pm
If armed citizens reduce the amount of crime then it should be easily shown in the literature.

Crimes should be lower in cities that allow Conceal carry and higher in cities that don't allow it.

2006 - Top 10 cities with the highest violent crime rates were and CCW allowed (y/n - ccw allowed/not allowed- based on my best guess - corrections accepted)

St Louis, MO (y)
Detroit, MI (n)
Memphis, TN (y)
Oakland, CA (n)
Baltimore, MD (n)
Philly, PA (n)
Atlanta, GA (y)
Cleveland, OH (y)
Nashville, TN (y)
Miami, Fl (y)

It looks like having CCW doesn't really reduce crime or make a city safer. The record is even worse for property crimes in those cities that allow CCW

2006 - top 10 property crime cities and CCW allowed

St Louis (y)
Memphis TN (y)
Toledo, OH (y)
Columbus, OH (y)
Detroit (n)
Charlotte, NC (y)
Kansas City, MO (y)
Dallas, TX(y)
Stockton, CA (n)
Seattle, WA (n)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 08:33 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
My God! Re-education for potential future bad acts??? Did you ever hear of due process? What would these potential future criminals be charged with to force them to submit to this therapy???



It is not a matter of being "charged" with anything. It is a matter of identifying anti-social behavior and addressing it early, before it becomes an ingrained personality trait. This reflects society helping a person, not infringing on "rights." Sort of like not letting a person go over a waterfall, but rescuing the person, before they arrive at the waterfall.

If one sees this process as a violation of one's rights, then we cannot discuss this, since I do not see society as infringing on my rights in an adversarial way, if a child is acting anti-social, and early intervention will assist a child to grow up to be a model citizen, rather than evolve into worse anti-social behavior.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 08:37 pm
All the more reason to go out and buy a gun Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 08:43 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
All the more reason to go out and buy a gun Twisted Evil

If you are responding to my post, I do not understand the context of your post. You need an "if" clause to explain your sentence.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:04 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:

Let's get something straight. Do you believe in a right to self-defense or do you not? You say you don't want to take away peoples' right to self-protection, and then you follow it by saying that you can't see any difference between claiming a right to self-defense and claiming a right to public drunkenness???


I believe society should make every effort to protect all citizens from anti-social behavior. I do not believe in guns in civilian society. I do not believe in public drunkenness. And, there is a difference between what I believe in and what I would want to do. I do not have the ethical right to take guns away, if I could, so I do not want to take any guns away. I still need not believe in them as a benefit to a civilian society.

We need not get anything "straight," since we are from different worlds, same country!
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 09:07 pm
Foofie wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
All the more reason to go out and buy a gun Twisted Evil

... are responding to my post ...?


It is you that is responding to my post Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2019 at 06:54:53