Originally Posted by Eric the Green

For liberals and conservatives today, the distinctions or "battles" between "liberal and conservative" mean a lot. If you are not yourself a liberal or conservative, you might not relate to those terms, or to those folks who are being "turned against each other" along those lines. Since libertarians (among others) are neither liberal nor conservative, they cannot identify with either term. However, that does not mean the terms are meaningless for those who do identify as liberal or conservative. They are meaningful to us, if not to you, and we don't look upon them as signifying merely an "agenda imposed by the authorities," but as a real difference of opinion among the people concerning the priorities of our country and government.

It helps to keep in mind the Libertarian Party's own map of the political terms and their meanings, and give due recognition to the various opinions.

Santa is meaningful to some but that doesn't mean Santa has any real value outside of being a really, really good sales pitch.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, I can buy them doing a forced entry, but I'll be waiting for your example of them murdering "harmless, unarmed folks".

The map linked contained many examples. Of course that is just a small sampling of paramilitary raids on innocent civilians and doesn't include your average, run-of-the-mill police killing. There are no shortage of those.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The problem is that no-one who has weapons can be trusted any more than the government can be trusted. In fact, they are less to be trusted, because those in the government who have weapons are tasked with and paid for the specific job of protecting everyone within their jurisdiction.

Others also have the purpose of being armed to defend themselves against the government, which is in fact becoming an armed revolutionary like the Black Panthers were. And it also makes you in like manner a target for the government and the police. If your purpose for having firearms includes this, copperfield, then you are an armed revolutionary and a target.



Yes, but I also support the idea that such government(s) and their enforcers should be overseen and paid for by the people, including review boards with real power to investigate incidents and fire those who use weapons against the people unjustly. It does happen, I agree. The police forces work for the people. If they do not do their job properly, they can and should be fired or put in jail for crimes. Any policeman has, as an incentive, the requirement that they do their job properly if they want to keep it, which does not include shooting innocent people. An armed individual has no such incentives or requirements, beyond the law itself which applies to all.

In fact I trust my neighbors a lot more than I trust the government but then my neighbors usually don't get paid to make examples out of others when disobedience happens. Those in government are tasked with protecting government (law) and empire, not people. There is no law on the books that requires police to show up at your door.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

In fact I trust my neighbors a lot more than I trust the government but then my neighbors usually don't get paid to make examples out of others when disobedience happens. Those in government are tasked with protecting government (law) and empire, not people. There is no law on the books that requires police to show up at your door.

Those in government are tasked with protecting the people who hire them. Policemen are not protecting empire, and the army (which does protect empire) does not show up at your door. If the police show up at your door without cause, they are criminals, because you're right; there is no law on the books that requires police to show up at your door, unless you are being investigated (or the cop is reporting to you that your family member is a victim), or have been charged with a crime yourself.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I want the option of being able to defend myself and my loved ones from those that would seek to do harm. If imagining other reasoning and terminology that better fits your narrow view of the world helps you get through your day then go for it I guess.

I could see the need for that type of arsenal in a scenario where civilization breaks down (ala Revolution). Is that what you have in mind?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Others also have the purpose of being armed to defend themselves against the government, which is in fact becoming an armed revolutionary like the Black Panthers were. And it also makes you in like manner a target for the government and the police. If your purpose for having firearms includes this, copperfield, then you are an armed revolutionary and a target.

Oh I almost forgot this. So you admit that your "professional" government types target people who don't break the law? Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...and the army (which does protect empire) does not show up at your door.

Actually the army often does show up at my door but usually not to protect the empire.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Santa is meaningful to some but that doesn't mean Santa has any real value outside of being a really, really good sales pitch.

You just have a different view of the range of political opinion than most others have, but you don't give any recognition to anyone else's views besides those who agree with yours.

I may not be much different, actually; but at least I recognize the existence of differences of opinion among the people, and don't consider these opinions to originate entirely from the authorities. The people are responsible for the opinions they hold, and for whom they vote; not the authorities, however much the authorities try to deceive the people, and however much they may succeed in doing so.

I and other liberals just have a different opinion than you libertarians and anarchists do of who believes myths and who understand realities. You and The Rani are at a different place on the political grid than I and other liberals (and conservatives) are, and that's all it amounts to. Since that is so, you guys say the terms for all views different from your own, and the political battles they stand for, are "meaningless." I don't say that any of the terms are meaningless, including the terms for your (in my opinion, misguided) views.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh I almost forgot this. So you admit that your "professional" government types target people who don't break the law? Is that correct?

They ( at least sometimes) target people with guns, yes; especially those who advertise the fact for the purpose of opposing them. Yes, unfortunately, the attack on such groups as the Black Panthers, I think were unfair and illegal. And the attack on the Branch Davidians was also unfortunate, and I don't think I agreed with it. I'm not sure these people were not "breaking the law" however. If they were stockpiling weapons, that may be against the law.

Actually the army often does show up at my door but usually not to protect the empire.

Why does the army show up at your door?

I've never heard of such a thing. They are out protecting the empire, and that means they are over in Afghanistan or Iraq or places like that, or training at military bases in various places.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I could see the need for that type of arsenal in a scenario where civilization breaks down (ala Revolution). Is that what you have in mind?

What arsenal? What criteria need to be met for one to own an "arsenal"?

Now if you are asking me if I think things can go to shit for a brief or extended period of time, then yes, that is one reason to own a firearm or even several firearms. There are a great many other reasons why I own firearms as well.

And for the record I made it through maybe 10 minutes of Revolution before turning it off. When they introduced the love interest as a clean-shaven, fashionably dressed lad (after 15 years without electricity) I knew I was done with it. You could practically smell the aqua velva. I was always a Jericho guy myself.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

The map linked contained many examples. Of course that is just a small sampling of paramilitary raids on innocent civilians and doesn't include your average, run-of-the-mill police killing. There are no shortage of those.

The map showed nothng on my machine. As to the rage shooting, can you honestly say that having a gun in the car would have produced better results? I suspect that there would have been three dead instead of one. That doesn't lessen the sorrow and anger we should all feel for what actually did happen.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why does the army show up at your door?

I've never heard of such a thing. They are out protecting the empire, and that means they are over in Afghanistan or Iraq or places like that, or training at military bases in various places.

For beer usually, the thirsty bastards.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The map showed nothng on my machine. As to the rage shooting, can you honestly say that having a gun in the car would have produced better results? I suspect that there would have been three dead instead of one. That doesn't lessen the sorrow and anger we should all feel for what actually did happen.

Where did I say that having a gun would resolve the situation? We were discussing so-called professionals who can't differentiate between a bright yellow power drill and a hand gun who sometimes kill unarmed people. You were asking for examples as I recall...

Originally Posted by Copperfield

For beer usually, the thirsty bastards.

OK, but don't shoot them if they get drunk. You could start a revolution!

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Where did I say that having a gun would resolve the situation? We were discussing so-called professionals who can't differentiate between a bright yellow power drill and a hand gun who sometimes kill unarmed people. You were asking for examples as I recall...

Following a link from the same article, let us not forget specially-trained, uniquely-capable so-called professionals. Who are a clear alternative to the mass collateral damage certain to be caused by an unprofessional. The one would "spray" bullets into the middle of a "crowded street"; whereas the other could be trusted to refrain from firing unless they were sure not only of their target, but of the environment behind their target.

Then again, there's something to be said for an incentive structure that lets costumed goons kill whoever they want so long as they and a friend are willing to lie in court that they were "doing their job". One gets, indeed, what one pays for.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Following a link from the same article, let us not forget specially-trained, uniquely-capable so-called professionals. Who are a clear alternative to the mass collateral damage certain to be caused by an unprofessional. The one would "spray" bullets into the middle of a "crowded street"; whereas the other could be trusted to refrain from firing unless they were sure not only of their target, but of the environment behind their target.

Then again, there's something to be said for an incentive structure that lets costumed goons kill whoever they want so long as they and a friend are willing to lie in court that they were "doing their job". One gets, indeed, what one pays for.

Oh goodness yes. These spray and pray events have been going on for decades, for instance the shooting of Amadou Diallo for which there were no consequences other than a dead immigrant.

And why stop with simply hurling an overwhelming storm of bullets at surrendering civilians? These "professionals" also enjoy tossing the occasional flash-bang grenade into family living rooms.

It's unfortunate really, as I have known a few (and only a few) truly decent people who also happened to be police officers. Interestingly, I have found that the good ones are usually pretty easy to spot; they are almost always the ones who spend their spare time teaching civilians how to shoot. Funny...

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

There has been a lot of talk since the Newtown massacre to try to keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people. This is all well and good, but there has to be some criteria as to who fits that category. Perhaps a psychiatric exam prior to purchase. After all, if we can require background and drug checks for even insignificant employment such as for dishwasher, certainly we can do this for gun purchases. Anyone who owns a firearm ought to be alert to the potential dangers, just as much as when driving a car. In Chicago there was an increase in murders to 506 last year, and already three in the new year.

There's a major problem with requiring a psychiatric exam for anything, which is that a psychiatric exam has no real way of predicting violent behavior to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "probable cause" standard that any judge would be comfortable denying someone their rights (especially when you have no prior criminal history). Also, mere psychiatric problems don't necessarily mean that they cannot be mitigated. Even something like schizophrenia can be overcome quite often with a regular regime of medication, if the patient is willing to follow it. While that's a big if, it doesn't necessarily mean a person is a danger to themselves or others, which is the level of danger one must represent in most places to for the government to be able to do anything to a person without their consent as far as mental health reasons go.

Further complicating the issue is the tendency for mental health professionals to exaggerate the extent of mental illness so insurances will cover it. So people who have a mild personality disorder will be diagnosed with full blown bipolar will then they really have a milder personality disorder to help them out. Now psychiatrists will be faced with the difficulty of costing a person rights at the expense of insurance coverage.

Finally, there's just the fact that paranoid snapcases will be less likely to seek help from anyone who is going to take something away from them. That makes them look less like a helping hand and more like an authority figure that is out to get them, which will reinforce their paranoia. So such a requirement would further encourage snapcase loons to hide their problems instead of seek help.

While I believe that people running criminal histories on dishwashers should have their genitals pounded on with a sledge hammer, the solution is in removing those stupid barriers, not creating more stupid barriers out of spite.

Lots of hate in here for cops. What about luring firefighters into ambushes? Speak to this, please, and include why police would feel more threatened, and use greater force in future if the suspect was known to be heavily armed. Even if the suspect is unarmed, as a police officer, not knowing this, what would you expect, say, if the cop were only reading posts on the internet from weapons enthusiasts?

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Lots of hate in here for cops. What about luring firefighters into ambushes? Speak to this, please, and include why police would feel more threatened, and use greater force in future if the suspect was known to be heavily armed. Even if the suspect is unarmed, as a police officer, not knowing this, what would you expect, say, if the cop were only reading posts on the internet from weapons enthusiasts?

These are real issues. Once you raise the threat level, the potentially threatened act with far less reserve. Taken to the extreme, in an active war zone for example, shoot-think replaces think-shoot most of the time. Why would this be a good model for society in general?

For your consideration and comment (only 24 partial pages of reading)...

Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, Principles for Effective Gun Policy, 73 Fordham Law Review 589 (2004).
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol73/iss2/8

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Lots of hate in here for cops. What about luring firefighters into ambushes? Speak to this, please, and include why police would feel more threatened, and use greater force in future if the suspect was known to be heavily armed. Even if the suspect is unarmed, as a police officer, not knowing this, what would you expect, say, if the cop were only reading posts on the internet from weapons enthusiasts?

Yes; "off the pigs" and hating cops was a fun thing in my youth, and anarchy is an interesting fantasy, but I think we owe them some respect and consideration for putting their lives on the line to protect us from criminals, as long as they respect the rights of the people.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Where did I say that having a gun would resolve the situation? We were discussing so-called professionals who can't differentiate between a bright yellow power drill and a hand gun who sometimes kill unarmed people. You were asking for examples as I recall...

You cited actions like these as a justificaion for being armed. OK, then what would that have gained anyone in this case? For that matter, do we really know the facts, or just what made it to the 11 PM News? Has this case been resolved?

And for the record, I'm not a great fan of our criminal-justice system as it currently exists. It is what it is, because the majority seem to want it that way. We swing hard right on law-and-order, then we swing back the other way. Judging by the decline in the dealth penalty, I think we're heading away from overuse of the police powers of the state. Don't hold your breath, though. It will be decades in the making.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You cited actions like these as a justificaion for being armed. OK, then what would that have gained anyone in this case? For that matter, do we really know the facts, or just what made it to the 11 PM News? Has this case been resolved?

And for the record, I'm not a great fan of our criminal-justice system as it currently exists. It is what it is, because the majority seem to want it that way. We swing hard right on law-and-order, then we swing back the other way. Judging by the decline in the dealth penalty, I think we're heading away from overuse of the police powers of the state. Don't hold your breath, though. It will be decades in the making.

Don't you feel that the 9/11 attacks culminated in a perfect storm of excuses to turn our society toward becoming a police state. When you see armed guards in McDonald's locations and in some cases even libraries, that does seem absurd. When I was young folks complained to high heaven about the police states of communist nations.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

For your consideration and comment (only 24 partial pages of reading)...

Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, Principles for Effective Gun Policy, 73 Fordham Law Review 589 (2004).
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol73/iss2/8

Thanks. Of course, there is a real problem knowing the facts, since the NRA has actively made it illegal or finaincially unappealing for anyone to study the issue.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You cited actions like these as a justificaion for being armed. OK, then what would that have gained anyone in this case? For that matter, do we really know the facts, or just what made it to the 11 PM News? Has this case been resolved?

And for the record, I'm not a great fan of our criminal-justice system as it currently exists. It is what it is, because the majority seem to want it that way. We swing hard right on law-and-order, then we swing back the other way. Judging by the decline in the dealth penalty, I think we're heading away from overuse of the police powers of the state. Don't hold your breath, though. It will be decades in the making.

Unfortunately we don't have decades. The amount we spend on law enforcement, courts, and corrections are killing a lot of state governments. We don't have the cash for that.

Meanwhile, when you're talking about fire arms and self defense, while a lot of people live in places with relatively short police response times, a lot live in places with excessively long police response times. Those response times aren't bound by jurisdiction. There will be some places in many if not most jurisdictions that are 30 minutes to an hour's response time while the rest of it enjoys a 10 minute response. National or even state legislation cannot handle both, and even local in most places are questionable.

While I think the self-defense opportunities of guns are overstated by gun lobbies, I still can't say it's right to take reasonable options away from people living in more difficult to reach areas. Those reasonable options include semiautomatic weapons and hollow point bullets. I also think giving them a dozen rounds in a mag to hit their target in a stressful situation isn't unreasonable. A lot of people need these things, not because of everyday situations, but because of extreme situations. Just like a hunter who gets reared up on by a bear he thought was dead. Not an every day thing, but an extreme situation requiring a degree of respect for urgency.

There's a lot of stupid things in gun culture, and it leads to a lot of dumb results, but persecuting the paranoid to the detriment of the larger, quieter responsible majority is stupid.