Foofie wrote: Brandon9000 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?