Originally Posted by Dedalus

Hopefully we will though, on the other side of this 4T.

Amen to that!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My problem with gun-related data of any kind is the seemingly infinite ability of the NRA to suppress the keeping of data and the suppression of any analysis of what exists that may be contrary to their POV. Their power is breathtaking. So anything produced by an ally, to say nothing of someone who has actually been paid by them, is suspicious by definition.

I understand suspicion of data from suspicious sources. I humbly suggest that a better approach to data from suspicious sources is rigorous personal analysis using a standard research methodology vice discarding the data.

If we predominately make decisions by considering data that does not support our current position suspicious and then discarding the data because it is suspicious, then...well, we end up with a lot of people yelling at each other about whose imaginary friend is better.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Failure to accidentally kill someone is not indicative of safe use. I would be more likely to consider it luck.

This, right here, is the heart of our disagreement, isn't it?

You lack trust in your coworker to do the right thing, just like you lack trust that Joseph Zamudio would have done the right thing in dealing with a still-shooting Jared Loughner -- despite the fact that he was responsible and made the right call in a very tricky situation.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

After all, they shoot guns in the air in the Middle East to celebrate. I assume the number killed by falling rounds is limited, or it wouldn't be done. It's still incredibly stupid.

It is stupid. Is there any indication that your coworker is engaging in discharging his weapon in such a stupid and unsafe manner? Or is it that you fear he just might at some point handle his weapon unsafely? Your first point above suggests the latter.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My coworker is in a club of 10 or 12 who have these things. They shoot them, but no one outside the group seems to know where. This part of Virginia is rural, but not that rural.

I did a quick Google search and discovered that there are a number of ranges capable of accommodating weapons that fire .50 caliber weapons. I don't know how far they are from your coworker's gun club, but it's apparently not that far out or crazy. Then again, for all I know, they could be using their weapons in an unsafe manner. Nonetheless, I wouldn't make that assumption unless I had reason to.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If the magazines have no purpose other than shooting many people ... or cows ... or whatever, let's agree to take them off the market.

OK. Now define "high-capacity magazine". You and I might agree that 30 is too many for a Glock 19, but someone like Eric might have a different definition. Indeed, in states with their own laws against high-capacity magazines the definition ranges from 5 to 30.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

They obviously only have application in a military setting.

The irony is that they don't. The tension of the spring degrades over time, which is why it's not uncommon to find people not filling the extended magazines on their rifles to capacity. And while I didn't have direct experience with .50 caliber sniper rifles, if I recall correctly, snipers don't fill their stock magazines to capacity.

Note that Loughner's second high-capacity magazine jammed on loading.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Wen Cho Lee was actually in the system and still got guns. The problem is all the boo-hooing that it takes to long and its too hard, so make the process fast and easy ... and sloppy.

Actually, no. In the case of Seung-Hui Cho, a discrepancy between the wording of Virginia's law and the federal law was slightly different, an unfortunate fact which nobody thought would be a problem until it was. I'm not familiar with the legal situation in Virginia, so I don't know if the discrepancy was addressed or not.

Also, Cho made no death threats. Loughner did. He was never even charged with anything.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

See: "Mob rule."

No, a mob is defined as an angry and unruly group, not a legally-bound body entrusted with making decisions based on voting. Law is a collective decision-making process, not imposing an individual's will on someone else as you earlier stated; nor of one group over another.

I never said it was. Its goal is not freedom or comfort or a better job or bigger house.

What is the goal of anarchy then? It doesn't matter anyway; the effect is clear. Those with the biggest guns (or whatever the powerful weapons of the time are) make all the decisions. That's the system you favor, and that's why you want your gun by your bed.

You also don't live in a democracy. If you think the control in this country lies within the process, then I've got a real nice deal on a bridge you might be interested in.

The reason our democracy is not as good as it should be is because of folks like you who are tearing it down and knocking it instead of participating in it to make it better. I don't see you on the streets like the folks in Egypt. Will you be there in 2025? I doubt it. Your point of view is not that we don't have democracy. You don't want democracy. Your stated point of view is that you believe in rule by the gun.

And that's precisely what frightens you so much isn't it? To learn how little in control you really are. People really are free to choose to do whatever they want. Law ultimately can't stop them. It can only harass those in a state of weakness, or perhaps even kill the powerless, but it will never be able to stop free will.

I am not the one who is afraid; you are! You are the one with the gun by your bed. Your are afraid, and you are very dangerous. I live in a safe neighborhood. That's the best "self-defense." I never worry about getting shot. I have been robbed once; so I learned to lock up (I had left the garage door open). Law does stop most people. It works amazingly well. It is not weakness to obey the law; it is your duty. It is concern for the welfare of your neighbors. Free will means nothing without good sense to guide it.

Your argument was a strawman. Show me anyone advocating repeal of the 1st amendment. There are many advocating the repeal of the 2nd. There is every guarantee in our country that we have the right to advocate anything we wish regarding a constitutional amendment-- which you don't care about anyway, according to you.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Hmm.. wouldn't Occam's Razor eventually start to hint that maybe, rather than an omnipotent Evil Conspiracy thoroughly suppressing all this hypothetical data and analysis, reality simply has a pro-gun bias?

I went through this several years ago, and found to my astonishment that there are laws on the books that mandate that gun-related data never be fully aggregated by any Federal agency, and further mandate that no Federal agency can require any jurisdiction to collect any gun related data it doesn't wish to collect on its own. The NCIC has detailed and consistent data on drivers and motor vehicles, but nothing reliable at all on guns, gun violence (except for convictions which must be public) and nothing on self defense or other uses.

Originally Posted by Justin '77 ...

That the NRA likes all the reputable studies out there because... all the reputable studies out there keep coming to the conclusion that the NRA is right?

I know I'd certainly be happy with researchers in general if I were them.

They specifically blocked a CDC study. It would have been large and well funded, but Congress stopped it cold. Why?

Originally Posted by Semo '75

This, right here, is the heart of our disagreement, isn't it?

You lack trust in your coworker to do the right thing, just like you lack trust that Joseph Zamudio would have done the right thing in dealing with a still-shooting Jared Loughner -- despite the fact that he was responsible and made the right call in a very tricky situation.

It is stupid. Is there any indication that your coworker is engaging in discharging his weapon in such a stupid and unsafe manner? Or is it that you fear he just might at some point handle his weapon unsafely? Your first point above suggests the latter.

I did a quick Google search and discovered that there are a number of ranges capable of accommodating weapons that fire .50 caliber weapons. I don't know how far they are from your coworker's gun club, but it's apparently not that far out or crazy. Then again, for all I know, they could be using their weapons in an unsafe manner. Nonetheless, I wouldn't make that assumption unless I had reason to.

You wish to assume good until proven otherwise, when the issue involves items designed specifically for making hole in things from a distance. Do you have the same faith in people to own and operate motor vehicles safely and to insure themselves in case of accidents? Note that motor vehicle have real utility. We would cease functioning as a nation without them. I can't envision any private individual needing a 50-caliber target rifle for any practical purpose, yet you are willing to grant them more leeway than you would for drivers.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

OK. Now define "high-capacity magazine". You and I might agree that 30 is too many for a Glock 19, but someone like Eric might have a different definition. Indeed, in states with their own laws against high-capacity magazines the definition ranges from 5 to 30.

Anything I write here is arbitrary, but then insurance limits to operate a motor vehicle are arbitrary too. I'll pick 10. It has the benefit of being a round number, and it's more than I would prefer.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

The irony is that they don't. The tension of the spring degrades over time, which is why it's not uncommon to find people not filling the extended magazines on their rifles to capacity. And while I didn't have direct experience with .50 caliber sniper rifles, if I recall correctly, snipers don't fill their stock magazines to capacity.

Note that Loughner's second high-capacity magazine jammed on loading.

So? Is there a point here. I find the idea of going about armed as nuts, in and of itself. If we have to allow it, then make it reasonable, in a defensive sense of the term. If you pull a gun to defend yourself, The gun itself is the big deterrence. Firing means the situation is out of hand, I assume that others are at risk as much as you and the perp.

Originally Posted by Semo '75 ...

Actually, no. In the case of Seung-Hui Cho, a discrepancy between the wording of Virginia's law and the federal law was slightly different, an unfortunate fact which nobody thought would be a problem until it was. I'm not familiar with the legal situation in Virginia, so I don't know if the discrepancy was addressed or not.

Also, Cho made no death threats. Loughner did. He was never even charged with anything.

Is this intended to make a case for your position? My argument would be, no handgun license unless you can demonstrate stability and need. Cho would never have met that standard, nor would Loughner. That's the rule in New York State, among others.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You wish to assume good until proven otherwise, when the issue involves items designed specifically for making hole in things from a distance. Do you have the same faith in people to own and operate motor vehicles safely and to insure themselves in case of accidents? Note that motor vehicle have real utility. We would cease functioning as a nation without them. I can't envision any private individual needing a 50-caliber target rifle for any practical purpose, yet you are willing to grant them more leeway than you would for drivers.

I don't "wish" anything. I was pointing to an important difference in the way that we think about things. When you say that every shot your coworker fires that doesn't kill someone is a lucky shot, you're basically saying that he is guilty of engaging in unsafe practices until proven innocent. I would say that he is innocent until proven guilty.

That's a key difference and I think that it's important to point out, that's all.

Beyond that, you've said that you're done with the discussion, and I respect that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, a mob is defined as an angry and unruly group, not a legally-bound body entrusted with making decisions based on voting. Law is a collective decision-making process, not imposing an individual's will on someone else as you earlier stated; nor of one group over another.

Well let's start with some definitions (actual definitions, not what you believe they mean): Webster's defines "Mob Rule" as Ochlocracy and vice versa, that is, government by the mob.

Wikipedia's definition is much more fleshed out and defines ochlocracy in this way:

Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.[1]
Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligocracy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "Mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.

Now remember that "Demogoguery" part because it's important especially as it pertains to you.

Law in our system is occasionally a collective decision-making process but most of the time is the result of elected representatives who are not obligated to represent you once elected. As you live in a Republic and not a Democracy, elected representatives are the ones who write and vote on most of the laws but not all. It may surprise you but many government agencies (The BATF for instance) actually have the power to enact new laws and regulations that are not passed by Congress/POTUS. For instance, if the BATF is given the vague task of "regulating liquor sales in the US" then they are able to fill in the gaps in regulation. Congress cannot possibly pass a statute to cover every possible issue a government agency will come across in the real world, so they are granted the ability to promulgate new rules. In other words they have some power to write law in this country without due process. That is quite far removed from what you believe is a "collective process." The only reason this happens if because the majority (you) allow it to.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What is the goal of anarchy then? It doesn't matter anyway; the effect is clear. Those with the biggest guns (or whatever the powerful weapons of the time are) make all the decisions. That's the system you favor, and that's why you want your gun by your bed.

Well let's head to the dictionary again. Webster's defines anarchy as:

a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

If you studied anarchy you might know that it refers to a society that has no laws because the people in that society do not need laws.

As I stated, the goals of anarchy are not to provide you (or anyone) with stuff or protection but instead provide you with truth and absolute freedom. As you are an authoritarian I can understand why this scares you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The reason our democracy is not as good as it should be is because of folks like you who are tearing it down and knocking it instead of participating in it to make it better.

I am tearing it down? That would be difficult as I don't even vote. I take no part in the process because I realized our process isn't democracy any more than the process of selecting Egypt's or North Korea's government is democracy. The only people tearing this country apart are those who actively accept and take part in a process corrupted by its own people and elected leaders. Those in charge decide who gets the sanctioning to run (who is acceptable to the system in place), while you obediently do your part by condemning "the bad guys" and casting your vote (supporting the corrupted system). The only people tearing apart democracy are those taking part in an undemocratic system. In other words Eric, you.

Besides, I have a strict policy of non-intervention when it comes to this country. You may think of me as a casual observer. You folks are just too damn interesting to watch and I am not interested in altering your course in any way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Will you be there in 2025? I doubt it. Your point of view is not that we don't have democracy. You don't want democracy. Your stated point of view is that you believe in rule by the gun.

Will I be where in 2025? What date? At home? At the bar? In the streets marching or sitting in a circle smoking dope, wearing a tie-die T-shirt and singing kumbaya? Your question is too vague to be answered. What will you be doing on March 23, 2027 Eric? Putting your teeth in your head, filling your diaper, or feeding worms?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I am not the one who is afraid; you are!

Someone once told me that exclamation points are the sign of a true statement.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your are afraid, and you are very dangerous.

Ahh remember that part about demagoguery Eric? Let’s consult some definitions again. Webster’s has this definition of demagogue:

: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

Dictionary.com has this to say:

–noun
1.
a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2.
(in ancient times) a leader of the people.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
–verb (used without object)
4.
to speak or act like a demagogue.

So you Eric without knowing me, have just accused me (a law abiding citizen and by most accounts a very nice and generous guy) of being very dangerous. That's a pretty strong accusation especially without due process. That's demagoguery Eric. You fit right in with the model and you do everything expected of you by the people who own you and by the mob rule. Good job Eric, keep it up.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I live in a safe neighborhood.

So do I. Even better, I live in the safest house in my safe neighborhood.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's the best "self-defense."

Actually it's terrible self-defense but the difference between me and you is that I won't ever force you to adopt my views through the law. I believe you are free to choose whatever you wish for defense.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I never worry about getting shot.

Me either.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have been robbed once; so I learned to lock up (I had left the garage door open).

I have never been robbed. So much for your safe neighborhood apparently.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Law does stop most people. It works amazingly well.

Like it stopped pot smoking for example?

While we are on that subject, just look at the collapse of federal law surrounding marijuana. Do you know why that has been happening? Why anarchy of course. So many people simply don't comply with the law that the government is quite literally unable to enforce it. The loosening of law as the direct result of people practicing anarchic conditions, who would have guessed?

How about you Eric, do you smoke pot?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is not weakness to obey the law; it is your duty.

Is it an Egyptian's duty to obey Mubarak's laws? How about something closer to home? Was it a black man's duty to obey the law that said he couldn't drink from the white man's fountain? Sit on the white man's bus? Was Rosa Parks shirking her duty?

That is what most amuses me about you Baby Boomers. You did what you wanted and got a free ride for most of your life. Now that you are all grown up and staring old age and eventual death in the face, you have become sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant and even better you all love the law now (your law of course). What could be better than an aging hypocrite?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your argument was a straw man. Show me anyone advocating repeal of the 1st amendment.

Speaking of straw man, your statement qualifies.

For instance, Barry isn't necessarily advocating for repeal of the 1st amendment but he sure is in favor of "free-speech control:"

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2011/01/25/us-internet-kill-switch-bill-to-return-40091536/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are many advocating the repeal of the 2nd. There is every guarantee in our country that we have the right to advocate anything we wish regarding a constitutional amendment-- which you don't care about anyway, according to you.

Of course you may, just like I may choose to ignore repeal if it should happen.

And once again, that is the difference between you and me. I will never force you to do something against your will, even if I believe it is in your best interests.

Hope you have learned something today Eric. Just remember, it's okay to be ignorant. It's not okay to remain ignorant.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Webster's defines anarchy as:[/FONT]

a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

If you studied anarchy you might know that it refers to a society that has no laws because the people in that society do not need laws.

Wow, what a long post! Quantity is not necessarily quality, but let's see:

Here, you are using definition 3 instead of 1 and 2. By the way, the word utopia means "no place." It doesn't exist; it's a fantasy (in your case a libertarian fantasy).

I am tearing it down (democracy)? That would be difficult as I don't even vote. I take no part in the process because I realized our process isn't democracy any more than the process of selecting Egypt's or North Korea's government is democracy.

Those who don't vote are among those tearing democracy down. Your "realization" is incorrect; we have more democracy than Egypt or North Korea. Egypt looks like it will be more democratic soon, because the people there care enough to make it so. We in America have a lot to learn from the young people in Egypt.

The only people tearing this country apart are those who actively accept and take part in a process corrupted by its own people and elected leaders. Those in charge decide who gets the sanctioning to run (who is acceptable to the system in place), while you obediently do your part by condemning "the bad guys" and casting your vote (supporting the corrupted system). The only people tearing apart democracy are those taking part in an undemocratic system. In other words Eric, you.

The only way to change a corrupt system is to take action to change it, by any workable means. Those who opt out, such as you, are deciding that the current system is just fine and you don't need to change it.

Besides, I have a strict policy of non-intervention when it comes to this country. You may think of me as a casual observer. You folks are just too damn interesting to watch and I am not interested in altering your course in any way.

Are you not an American citizen?

Like I said, you are fine with the system as it is. So I don't know why you are arguing with me. You are fine with we baby boomers forcing our will on you. You wouldn't alter our course in any way. So why complain?

Your question is too vague to be answered. What will you be doing on March 23, 2027 Eric? Putting your teeth in your head, filling your diaper, or feeding worms?

I think you answered it. You will be watching what's happening, so how much freedom America has will be not enough of a concern to you to arouse you to act in any way.

So you Eric without knowing me, have just accused me (a law abiding citizen and by most accounts a very nice and generous guy) of being very dangerous. That's a pretty strong accusation especially without due process. That's demagoguery Eric. You fit right in with the model and you do everything expected of you by the people who own you and by the mob rule. Good job Eric, keep it up.

I don't think making a statement about you qualifies me as being a "leader," demogogic or otherwise.
Anyone who keeps a gun by his bed and is opposed to laws that might restrain his impulses is dangerous.

So do I. Even better, I live in the safest house in my safe neighborhood.

Yeah, safe or I'll blow the brains out of anyone who intrudes. You must think there are potential intruders in your neighborhood. I do not. I live in a safe neighborhood, and you do not (or you think you don't).

Actually it's terrible self-defense but the difference between me and you is that I won't ever force you to adopt my views through the law. I believe you are free to choose whatever you wish for defense.

Fair enough. Of course I can't force you to choose, unless a broad consensus of Americans agrees, which is not likely in our lifetimes. And I'm happy to accept some sort of urban/rural compromise so you can keep your gun by your bed in your rural neighborhood, but I don't have to worry so much about guns by the bed of my urban neighbors.

I have never been robbed. So much for your safe neighborhood apparently.

Once in 22 years isn't bad.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]While we are on that subject, just look at the collapse of federal law surrounding marijuana. Do you know why that has been happening? Why anarchy of course. So many people simply don't comply with the law that the government is quite literally unable to enforce it. The loosening of law as the direct result of people practicing anarchic conditions, who would have guessed?

I notice that when laws are passed such as cyclists have to wear a helmet or no cell phones used while driving, behavior changes significantly.
You are in effect comparing marijuana and guns, as others do, but I think the latter is far more dangerous. Gun possession hurts LOTS of people; marijuana smoking does not. Oh, and the federal law has not been altered one bit by people disobeying it.

How about you Eric, do you smoke pot?

Not any more, not for a long time; although I can't claim to have stopped because of the law. But I think the law makes it more difficult to smoke it than it otherwise would be. Also, I never purchased any, just took some a few times that friends offered me on the spot. So did I "possess" it?

The question is what the law should be, not that all laws are automatically good. Eventually marijuana will be legal, because right usually prevails in a democracy. It sometimes can take lifetimes, but Gen Xers like you have no patience. :razz:

My position on law is more complicated than yours. You are thinking in simple-minded, black-and-white ways. Laws can be bad, so there shouldn't be laws. I say, sometimes laws are disobeyed by such people as Rosa Parks because they want the law changed. Later, after democracy was insured by the voting rights act, it was easier to get change by asking the government to change the law. Until then, Rosa Parks had little option because she didn't really have the right to vote, nor did others in her movement.

That is what most amuses me about you Baby Boomers. You did what you wanted and got a free ride for most of your life. Now that you are all grown up and staring old age and eventual death in the face, you have become sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant and even better you all love the law now (your law of course). What could be better than an aging hypocrite?

But my views on gun control have not changed since at least 1968, when I attended rallies at the city hall asking for gun control after RFK was shot. So I don't know if your description applies to me. True, we are by-and-large "sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant," but maybe we always were!

And once again, that is the difference between you and me. I will never force you to do something against your will, even if I believe it is in your best interests.

True, but you prefer to live in a society ruled by the gun. You will have no choice but to use it and force others to your will. I will have the law to protect me from folks like you.

It's not my convo, so I'll leave the bulk of response to Copperhead. But some things you say, Eric....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

True, but you prefer to live in a society ruled by the gun. You will have no choice but to use it and force others to your will. I will have the law to protect me from folks like you.

- "The Law" is not a thing. The Law does not do anything; does not hurt anyone; does not protect anyone.

The Law is -- at the very most -- a set of behaviors that society agrees are appropriate to respond to ... with violence. As experienced to differing degrees in all environments made up of human beings so far, The Law is in fact not reflective of the will of an entire society, so much as of the will of a small class in a society (we call this class 'rulers'). But I'm inclined to set that point aside for a moment and talk even about the idealized-never-realized-by-human-beings Law.

In reality, Copperhead has made it clear that he is willing to take sole responsibility for violence that may be done on his behalf. On the other hand, people like you hide behind "The Law", simply arranging for other people do your violence for you, all the while insisting (in all likelihood, to yourself loudest of all) that your hands are clean.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The Law is -- at the very most -- a set of behaviors that society agrees are appropriate to respond to ... with violence. As experienced to differing degrees in all environments made up of human beings so far, The Law is in fact not reflective of the will of an entire society, so much as of the will of a small class in a society (we call this class 'rulers'). But I'm inclined to set that point aside for a moment and talk even about the idealized-never-realized-by-human-beings Law.

The bulk of the law and law enforcement does not involve use of force. Guns are not drawn. Blows are not struck. There is an element of coercion involved, but this is very different from violence.

Most of the People, most of the time, live within the social contract. I quite agree that the ruling class is real and that most societies are warped to significant degree by the will of a few. Government to this point has been inherently imperfect. We are far from the end of history, the point where the cycles will stop, there will be no more crises, as society is so perfect that there will be no more need for major transformations.

But the current inability to get a solid regeneracy going is due to the People's inability to unite on what the transformation ought to be. If a People cannot unite on a vision of the future, that future isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The bulk of the law and law enforcement does not involve use of force. Guns are not drawn. Blows are not struck. There is an element of coercion involved, but this is very different from violence..

This is not precisely true since there is always the threat of violence behind any command from the government.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... But the current inability to get a solid regeneracy going is due to the People's inability to unite on what the transformation ought to be. If a People cannot unite on a vision of the future, that future isn't going to happen.

Exactly, but why? First and foremost, we have a leadership failure of monumental proportions. The Many can't lead. They need a leader (preferably) or a guidon to follow. So far, we have the demagogues on the right and a vacuum elsewhere. There is no vibrant middle and the left is in disarray. By all rights (pun intended), the right should be marching toward their goals with little if any delay. They aren't.

Which brings me to the problem at hand: the right has a program (or two ... or three), and excepting the true believers, it can't sell it/them to the rest of us. The left can't get it's socks on, so any potential enthusiasm on that side is simply missing. So where do we go, if we're headed nowhere? Do we finally get overtakedn by events, and become self motivted? From my admittedly poor vantage point, I see more confusion than anything else.

In Tunisia, it only took the rash act of a poor student turned merchant, self immolating himself and the country. No one is likely to do that here. We're ever too civilized for that. Instead, we'll await the deluge, then run around complaining we're wet.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The bulk of the law and law enforcement does not involve use of force. Guns are not drawn. Blows are not struck. There is an element of coercion involved, but this is very different from violence.

The first sentence is potentially true, if grossly mis-stated. The next two are true, but irrelevant (as the first sentence, properly-stated, would have made clear). The third is outright falsehood.

The bulk of 'law enforcement' does not involve the application of violence. Guns are [brought and prominently displayed, but] not drawn. [Instruments for the application of more personal-scale violence are similarly always close-at-hand, but] blows are not struck. The entire thing hinges on the coercion generated by the direct, immediate threat of violence.

The reason a burglar (for example; we could just as easily replace that person with "vandal", "unlicensed barber", or "guy-who-speaks-publicly-about forbidden-things") generally is able to be handled by 'law enforcement' persons without much ruckus is because the entire social paradigm makes it clear that any attempt to do anything else will be met with immediate disproportionate violence, up to and including summary execution. To pretend that, since the burglar let the handcuffs get snapped on him without having to be clubbed unconscious, the encounter was 'not violent' is utterly absurd. It is the very epitome of a violent interaction.

Originally Posted by Galen

This is not precisely true since there is always the threat of violence behind any command from the government.

In general, government rules of engagement strongly discourage use of lethal force unless the opposition first uses or threatens violence.

To a great degree it is a matter of definition. The people who dislike the government most might claim that writing a parking ticket is a violent act. From my perspective, one isn't being violent until guns or fired or blows are struck. I would freely admit that the government is and is designed to be coercive, but deny that the vast majority of reasonably normal people are apt to become victims of violence.

Man is a social animal. Men are territorial. The select leaders. They form hierarchies. They enforce rules. They are much like many another pack hunting species. If one lives in a human territory one has to expect to follow the rules. There are pie in the sky idealists dreamers who would like to pretend this is not so, that would claim the natrual state of man is a utopian anarchy where men naturally live alone and never use violence or coercion on each other. Alas, there aren't many examples of such pie in the sky dreams.

I would as soon start with man as he is and work some incremental improvements. This has to start with a true description of man as he is. The People do not commonly encounter violence from the government.

The People do commonly encounter political fanatics who can't call a spade a spade, who have to twist word usage pretzel wise to justify their unusual positions. Not common, but anyone encounters them from time to time. The common defense would be values lock. Anyone who needs to twist the english language in order to express their ideas would seem uncomfortably close to tin foil hat land. If someone's ideas are that far out of the cultural norm, most members of the culture are apt to dismiss the person expressing the pretzel idea as a nut rather than give an honest hearing.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The bulk of 'law enforcement' does not involve the application of violence. Guns are [brought and prominently displayed, but] not drawn. [Instruments for the application of more personal-scale violence are similarly always close-at-hand, but] blows are not struck. The entire thing hinges on the coercion generated by the direct, immediate threat of violence.

The reason a burglar (for example; we could just as easily replace that person with "vandal", "unlicensed barber", or "guy-who-speaks-publicly-about forbidden-things") generally is able to be handled by 'law enforcement' persons without much ruckus is because the entire social paradigm makes it clear that any attempt to do anything else will be met with immediate disproportionate violence, up to and including summary execution. To pretend that, since the burglar let the handcuffs get snapped on him without having to be clubbed unconscious, the encounter was 'not violent' is utterly absurd. It is the very epitome of a violent interaction.

You and Copperhead really don't have much to stand on in these arguments. Your complaint is that government needs to exercise violence in order to enforce its will. Therefore, you assume, law is somehow invalid or undesireable. Sure, coercion is undesireable. But without law, you have MORE coercion, not less. You also have more injustice, not less. Anarchy means only that whoever has the most power as an individual coerces others (e.g. Copperhead with his gun). Then, you might get small groups doing it; then larger groups; then presto, the state is back; and it may be a long time before you're back to law again to reign in the powerful people in this new state.

You don't get rid of human conflict by throwing away the means we have devised over the centuries to deal with it. Reduce human greed, fear and hunger first; then the state will become ever less coercive. Sorry Justin and Copperhead, the evidence is undeniable: humans are still greedy, fearful and hungry. To think otherwise is the silliest form of fantasy.

Our constitution was formed to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Getting rid of the constitution will not accomplish these aims.

Some people are greedy for power, it is true; and violent domination of some over the many others has been a root cause of many of our problems. I just don't think getting rid of the state now is the answer. Too many dominators are still out there ready to take advantage of others. So we need a state, and it can't be funded voluntarily. We all need to contribute in a fair way.

Some time back I raised some eyebrows by saying that the NRA theory that people need guns, rather than government, to defend themselves, threatened us with anarchy. At the CPAC convention, Wayne Lapierre of the NRA actually called for armed neighborhood militias as an alternative to police forces because government is a failure. That reminded me of Max Weber's definition of a state:

"His expanded definition was that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order."

Do we want a state or don't we? I do. It's far from perfect but the alternative is much worse.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

"His expanded definition was that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order."

The definition leaves out the need for self defense during the 10 minutes or so it takes for the police to respond. You are on your own for that time. You can be held to account for inappropriate use of force during that 10 minutes, but you should not be denied access to weapons of personal defense.

Do you disagree and why?

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Some time back I raised some eyebrows by saying that the NRA theory that people need guns, rather than government, to defend themselves, threatened us with anarchy. At the CPAC convention, Wayne Lapierre of the NRA actually called for armed neighborhood militias as an alternative to police forces because government is a failure. That reminded me of Max Weber's definition of a state:

"His expanded definition was that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order."

Do we want a state or don't we? I do. It's far from perfect but the alternative is much worse.

Weber's definition is a fine place to start an abstract discussion, but not all societies face the same threats, and thus not all societies have one ideal solution. Israel faces a real terrorist and military problem. All of their citizens spend time in the army, receive weapons training, then pass onto the reserves where they are expected to respond in an emergency. Such a system is not universally necessary or appropriate. In fact, I'd see it as a side effect of moving onto land that had been occupied by another group for centuries.

The US in Colonial times had a militia system that also armed and drilled the whole (male) population, for a similar reason. At that time there were no police forces and no standing armies to speak of. Every citizen had a weapon, was free to act to defend his own, and yet was part of an official organization that was recognized, regulated and controlled by the state.

In modern times, many believe in a sharper divide between the population and the state, that the monopoly on the use of force means ordinary civilians ought not be using force. There are still rules regarding self defense. One is still free to use weapons for protection. Yet, the system for training individuals so they can follow orders and work cooperatively was abandoned in Teddy Roosevelt's time.

The primary reason the militia system was abandoned was lack of threat. There were no more natives lurking in the woods, and no more warships raiding from the coasts. Teddy didn't want a militia suitable to enforce the law, suppress rebellions and repel invasions. He wanted forces that could be taken abroad in support of an imperialist agenda. The constitution forbade him from doing this with the militia, so he created the National Guard under the provisions for a standing army.

Ironically, the greater threat of violent crime seems to be in urban areas, where the drug, race and economic problems result in more violent crime. And yet, it is there that the call for gun control is usually stronger.

Anyway, private ownership of weapons is not incompatible with Weber's definition of a state. The Constitution is also not incompatible with Weber's definition. The federal government has the power to train and regulate the militia, which would be all able bodied adults. We aren't putting it into practice, effectively.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Some time back I raised some eyebrows by saying that the NRA theory that people need guns, rather than government, to defend themselves, threatened us with anarchy. At the CPAC convention, Wayne Lapierre of the NRA actually called for armed neighborhood militias as an alternative to police forces because government is a failure. That reminded me of Max Weber's definition of a state:

"His expanded definition was that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order."

Do we want a state or don't we? I do. It's far from perfect but the alternative is much worse.

First, I can think of a better deterrent to crime than a gun: a dog. I have made several arguments to that effect, so I need not go into detail beyond saying that a barking dog deters much.

Second, I do not trust private militias. They easily become politicized with agendas that delineate clearly 'insiders' from 'outsiders' and become useful in many sorts of political mischief. They can easily become lynch mobs or death squads, and in a society as polarized as ours, such is much a possibility.

The solution to a burglary is to either get out or to do nothing to draw attention to oneself. You don't want to confront a burglar.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Some time back I raised some eyebrows by saying that the NRA theory that people need guns, rather than government, to defend themselves, threatened us with anarchy. At the CPAC convention, Wayne Lapierre of the NRA actually called for armed neighborhood militias as an alternative to police forces because government is a failure. That reminded me of Max Weber's definition of a state:

"His expanded definition was that something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order."

Do we want a state or don't we? I do. It's far from perfect but the alternative is much worse.

In effect, the NRA proposal would replace the state with "armed neighborhood militias," meaning that would be the new "state." Yes; I think I prefer the old state!

Originally Posted by James50

The definition leaves out the need for self defense during the 10 minutes or so it takes for the police to respond. You are on your own for that time. You can be held to account for inappropriate use of force during that 10 minutes, but you should not be denied access to weapons of personal defense.

Do you disagree and why?

James50

We have already had this discussion, and I said then that I thought such situations were so hypothetical, and so unusual, that they should not determine public policy. However, I do not think Weber would have tried to ban immediate self-defense if one is under attack.

I would like to propose an alternative view. I think that people who would respond to an armed attempt to rob them or even rape them by drawing a gun of their own are making a big mistake. I have never been robbed but I would quickly reach into my pocket and hand my wallet over, remaining as calm as I could. Escalating the dispute is going to make some one's death much more likely and it might very well be one's own.

The idea I am really aiming at--and I admit LaPierre didn't go quite this far, although many of his membership do, and some on this forum have--is that we need to arm privately to defend against the government. That is a denial of the power of the state, which civilization requires to function. I have written a book which discussed in some detail what life in Europe was like before the modern state really existed, and it wasn't fun.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

We have already had this discussion, and I said then that I thought such situations were so hypothetical, and so unusual, that they should not determine public policy. However, I do not think Weber would have tried to ban immediate self-defense if one is under attack.

I would like to propose an alternative view. I think that people who would respond to an armed attempt to rob them or even rape them by drawing a gun of their own are making a big mistake. I have never been robbed but I would quickly reach into my pocket and hand my wallet over, remaining as calm as I could. Escalating the dispute is going to make some one's death much more likely and it might very well be one's own.

The idea I am really aiming at--and I admit LaPierre didn't go quite this far, although many of his membership do, and some on this forum have--is that we need to arm privately to defend against the government. That is a denial of the power of the state, which civilization requires to function. I have written a book which discussed in some detail what life in Europe was like before the modern state really existed, and it wasn't fun.

I would go back to the concept that humans are social animals. They select leaders, defend territory, make rules, enforce rules. To do this, they use force including lethal force. There is more to 'The State' than Weber. At a bottom up level, the State is wired into the species.

There is of course much variation on the theme, at the crudest level from hunter gatherer tribes, to agricultural empires, to industrial democracies, with many and large variations on each of the above themes.

The notion that private individuals need to keep and bear arms in defense against tyranny had its heyday between the Magna Carta and the American Revolution. Militias played a significant role in the wars of that era, significantly more so than before or since. We just saw in Egypt a revolution without guns. We have yet to see if it will be an effective revolution without guns, if a culture of tyranny and corruption can really be changed by a demand for change. Thing is, I don't know that the transformation of Anglo-American culture from hereditary feudalism to industrial democracy would have happened without the militia era. The progressive faction promising transforming rights to the people got a military advantage. This played a significant role in the gutting of the power of the hereditary, military land owning class.

Is the militia still necessary to the security of a free state? Can modern communications, democracy, professional police forces and non-violent tactics replace a gut level notion that one has rights and must be ready to fight for them?

This is not a question with an obvious answer. It is also a values loaded question. You advocate a notion that one ought to submit to lawlessness, that one should allow one's self to be robbed and raped. You seem to suggest that one should submit to tyranny. Many will disagree. Many will disagree vehemently. At one level I can see your position as reasonable. If one is not trained and armed, at a dry logical abstract level it is better to submit the contents of one's wallet than to initiate violence. At another level, such a perspective doesn't feel overly human. We are a species that uses violence to defend territories and protect our own. The right to self defense will strike a deep chord among many individuals. Many individuals will not submit to violence while waiting for the State to come to their rescue.

Like it or not, the laws and culture of the United States was born in blood during the heyday of the militia. Militia values and law are deep in our roots. In parts of the country where the State is far away and slow to respond, militia values and law are arguably still cost effective as well as deeply imbedded at a profound values lock level.

As a military historian, you should understand this even if you don't see it as an optimal future.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

We have already had this discussion, and I said then that I thought such situations were so hypothetical, and so unusual, that they should not determine public policy. However, I do not think Weber would have tried to ban immediate self-defense if one is under attack.

I would like to propose an alternative view. I think that people who would respond to an armed attempt to rob them or even rape them by drawing a gun of their own are making a big mistake. I have never been robbed but I would quickly reach into my pocket and hand my wallet over, remaining as calm as I could. Escalating the dispute is going to make some one's death much more likely and it might very well be one's own.

The idea I am really aiming at--and I admit LaPierre didn't go quite this far, although many of his membership do, and some on this forum have--is that we need to arm privately to defend against the government. That is a denial of the power of the state, which civilization requires to function. I have written a book which discussed in some detail what life in Europe was like before the modern state really existed, and it wasn't fun.

You, a male, have the option to quietly hand over what the attacker wants. I, a female, have that option only if the attacker simply wants money. If the attacker has rape in mind, your solution is not viable.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You, a male, have the option to quietly hand over what the attacker wants. I, a female, have that option only if the attacker simply wants money. If the attacker has rape in mind, your solution is not viable.

Bingo!!!!! Us guys often forget that rape is always a risk for women when confronted with an attacker.