MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 20, 2020 9:49:37 GMT -8
A fundamental truth that many people don't want to acknowledge is that you & you alone are responsible for your own safety. The police aren't, the government isn't, that responsibility is yours & yours alone. I'm not sure the United States Constitution or the intelligent people who wrote it and ratified it agree with you. When the Preamble states that the Constitution is ordained and established to "establish Justice", "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare", I think it places the responsibility of protecting our citizenry and ensuring their safety at least largely on government. That's true, but you also don't advocate for bringing in more dogs with more teeth. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 20, 2020 9:55:24 GMT -8
A fundamental truth you are ignoring is that we as a society have decided long ago that we wish to have policemen and the law protect us rather than angry individuals with guns seeking vengeance on our behalf. I don't think you'll find many people willing to accept your view of the way things are or should be. I’m sorry : I forgot to put you back on ignore. So, since I’m here, please stop including hyperbole in your attempts to persuade. “...angry individuals with guns seeking vengeance...” is emotionally manipulative language and does not at all describe what Bick (or anyone) is arguing for. also, the NRA doesn’t sell guns. They sell memberships and they claim to represent gun owners and sellers, I’m not sure what else they do because I’m not a member, but they don’t sell guns. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 21, 2020 10:33:16 GMT -8
A fundamental truth you are ignoring is that we as a society have decided long ago that we wish to have policemen and the law protect us rather than angry individuals with guns seeking vengeance on our behalf. The problem with your response is that you didn't think it through. Being responsible for ones safety does not mean having "angry individuals seeking vengeance". That is a false choice created by you. Being responsible for ones safety includes for instance, supporting a society that has policemen and law enforcement. However, note that policemen are indeed "law enforcement" and not "crime prevention". 99% of the time, when a crime occurs, a policeman is not available to help. Therefore, to be responsible for ones safety, one needs ways to protect and defend themselves. Locked doors, a guard dog, choosing to live in a neighborhood of like minded, non criminals all are part of that equation of taking responsibility for ones safety. What many don't want to accept is the right to owning a firearm is also part of that equation. 1000 years ago it was the right to own & use a sword & in a 1000 years it will be the right to own & use some kind of laser or other weapon. The irony is, the less responsibility one takes in the other areas, the more one needs to depend on a firearm. There isn't much need for owning a firearm living in a gate guarded, private community with guard dogs, an alarm system and a night watchman. However, if you live in a neighborhood where the neighbor on the left cooks meth and the neighbor on the right is a thief, you damn well better have a firearm. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 21, 2020 10:45:20 GMT -8
A fundamental truth that many people don't want to acknowledge is that you & you alone are responsible for your own safety. The police aren't, the government isn't, that responsibility is yours & yours alone. I'm not sure the United States Constitution or the intelligent people who wrote it and ratified it agree with you. When the Preamble states that the Constitution is ordained and established to "establish Justice", "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare", I think it places the responsibility of protecting our citizenry and ensuring their safety at least largely on government. I believe you are incorrect. Establishing Justice is about the court system, it has nothing to do with safety. Justice is after the fact of a crime. Insuring domestic tranquility is about the laws passed, about legislation. It is establishing what is legal, but it does not stop someone from breaking said law. Promoting the general welfare is about fairness, that laws and society should not be skewed to benefit a certain segment of the population over another part. Again, nothing in there makes you safe. What the founders did include was the way to provide for your own safety, the second amendment. This provides a path for one to be responsible for themselves, to not be sheep in a herd waiting to be slaughtered by wolves the moment the sheepherder heads into the woods to take a leak. It also gives one the ability to defend against the sheepherder himself. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 21, 2020 10:52:12 GMT -8
That's true, but you also don't advocate for bringing in more dogs with more teeth. The analogy went right over your head, it was about punishing those who were not participants in the crime Bringing in more dogs or adding teeth to the existing dogs would not have any effect on punishing the biting dog, unless you allowed all of the dogs to take down a biting dog the moment he went in for a chomp. In that case, it would be a good thing |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 22, 2020 4:39:53 GMT -8
Perhaps the confusion came about because you didn't mention policemen at all in your original statement...in fact you responded with your "personal responsibility" statement after the police were mentioned by someone else.
Perhaps you didn't think your statement through when it was made.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 22, 2020 4:41:40 GMT -8
That's true, but you also don't advocate for bringing in more dogs with more teeth. The analogy went right over your head, it was about punishing those who were not participants in the crime Bringing in more dogs or adding teeth to the existing dogs would not have any effect on punishing the biting dog, unless you allowed all of the dogs to take down a biting dog the moment he went in for a chomp. In that case, it would be a good thing This one went over my head too. Maybe after a couple cups of coffee I'll figure out if I need to consult with a dentist or a veterinarian. Dogs and teeth aside, I agree that hoping police would get there in time to help you, is more likely than not, a fatal mistake - especially in the rougher parts of town. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 22, 2020 4:45:08 GMT -8
Except of course that's not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution. That Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with personal safety or taking responsibility for same. It's all about the military and the founding fathers disdain for having a standing army. Hence the wording:
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The founders were not talking about having a gun in the home for personal protection. They were trying to prevent a future government from disarming the military.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 22, 2020 4:49:55 GMT -8
In those days, I don't believe there was much of a police presence, or even a way to call for help if you needed it.
It was assumed you were responsible for your personal safety.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Feb 22, 2020 5:21:12 GMT -8
Where's the cops?
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 23, 2020 12:49:36 GMT -8
Perhaps the confusion came about because you didn't mention policemen at all in your original statement...in fact you responded with your "personal responsibility" statement after the police were mentioned by someone else. Perhaps you didn't think your statement through when it was made. Or, perhaps you didn't understand what the term responsibility means and are now scrambling to not look foolish. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 23, 2020 12:57:40 GMT -8
Except of course that's not why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution. That Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with personal safety or taking responsibility for same. It's all about the military and the founding fathers disdain for having a standing army. Hence the wording: "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Again, you misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not claim that the reason for the 2nd amendment was personal safety, but rather the second amendment provided a path for personal safety. When things are done, there can be multiple benefits from such actions. The second amendment is a path for people to provide for their own safety, no matter the reasons given for its existence in the Constitution. By providing a way for the security of a free state, they also provided a way for people to take responsibility for their own safety. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 23, 2020 13:11:26 GMT -8
The second amendment is a path for people to provide for their own safety, no matter the reasons given for its existence in the Constitution. I agree, but I hope you will agree that the second amendment is also a path for criminal gangs and other violent lawbreakers to arm themselves like third world militias. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 23, 2020 13:33:36 GMT -8
The second amendment is a path for people to provide for their own safety, no matter the reasons given for its existence in the Constitution. I agree, but I hope you will agree that the second amendment is also a path for criminal gangs and other violent lawbreakers to arm themselves like third world militias. Yes I do agree it is. Which is precisely why the second amendment and guns themselves are not the problem. They are nothing more than a tool, an instrument and it is ultimately the user who determines whether or not they are used for good or for evil. Passing laws to nullify the second amendment and guns would only affect those who use firearms for good. By definition, criminal gangs and violent lawbreakers would not follow such laws. Any laws passed must be aimed at directly at the actions of those criminal groups & individuals, punishing them in a decisive manner to not only stop them from committing crimes in the future but creating a huge deterrent for anyone even considering doing the same. As much as I would love to wave a magic wand and PREVENT all violence (whether or not a gun is used in committing it), that will never happen in human existence. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Feb 23, 2020 15:39:13 GMT -8
I agree, but I hope you will agree that the second amendment is also a path for criminal gangs and other violent lawbreakers to arm themselves like third world militias. Exactly, and that is one of two arguments that gun control proponents have no answer for. The other is that the average police response time is not quick enough to save you and/or your family from someone who is trying to kill you/yours. |
|
