(no subject)
Aug. 24th, 2007 06:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
somedaybitchgosh, this couldn't *possibly* be because criminals don't use legal channels to purchase weapons, could it? naaaaahhhhhh. that's just crazy talk.
the article links to this older piece of theirs. two bits jump out at me.
emphasis mine, and yes, that exactly. law enforcement is reactionary for the most part. sometimes it gets lucky in its proactive work but more often than not, and *not* through any lack of effort on their part, the cops only find out about stuff after it happens. and when, generation after generation, society tells its citizens to rely on the government to take care of them, those citizens stop taking care of themselves. people call the cops, bitter and angry because the cops "aren't doing something to keep me and my family safe". well, what are those people doing about it themselves? yes, there's a balance between proactive citizens and vigilante behavior certainly, but simply because an endeavor requires constant work and attention doesn't mean it should be abandoned all together as too hard. the cops can't protect you, they can only help you protect yourself.
the other bit was this:
this is why gun ownership advocates keep throwing down the 2nd Amendment, to keep something like that from happening here. it may be with good intentions that people clamor for gun control, but an unarmed public is a victim culture.
the article links to this older piece of theirs. two bits jump out at me.
This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual's rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone's illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."
emphasis mine, and yes, that exactly. law enforcement is reactionary for the most part. sometimes it gets lucky in its proactive work but more often than not, and *not* through any lack of effort on their part, the cops only find out about stuff after it happens. and when, generation after generation, society tells its citizens to rely on the government to take care of them, those citizens stop taking care of themselves. people call the cops, bitter and angry because the cops "aren't doing something to keep me and my family safe". well, what are those people doing about it themselves? yes, there's a balance between proactive citizens and vigilante behavior certainly, but simply because an endeavor requires constant work and attention doesn't mean it should be abandoned all together as too hard. the cops can't protect you, they can only help you protect yourself.
the other bit was this:
The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution.
this is why gun ownership advocates keep throwing down the 2nd Amendment, to keep something like that from happening here. it may be with good intentions that people clamor for gun control, but an unarmed public is a victim culture.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-25 02:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-25 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-25 05:06 am (UTC)Yes the English model is very instructive to us. It shows us that the slippery slope of precedent and unilateral change is EXACTLY what happens...
on the other hand, I am weary of explaining to anyone... it seems really hard to get past the projectile weapon itself, and talk about the theory of what gives an individual autonomy, and how that relates to a grouping of individuals into a government. The relationship isn't trivial, but it has been so long since anyone had the need in real life to be autonomous, and longer still that when our govt. was something to be feared regularly.
anything that theoretical must not exist, right?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-25 06:40 am (UTC)that's what the Minister of Magic would like us to believe.;)
no subject
Date: 2007-08-25 11:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-25 12:41 pm (UTC)no, because it utterly disregards personal responsibility. i loathe the victim mindset.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-25 01:59 pm (UTC)Then again, I also believe I should be able to lethally defend my home, if necessary, without regard to the 'sanctity of life' of an invader/thief. I've read accounts of people being sued or worse by the intruder. That's just wrong.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-26 04:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-26 05:20 am (UTC)everybody calls the "Wild West" lawless, but really it wasn't by comparison. when everybody runs healed, bad guys pause.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-27 08:44 am (UTC)'we should have a focus group on how the criminal feels about breaking into a house and seeing the wrong end of a gun, they might be upset...' <any truth to this would be supported by my theory that I don't dream as well as real life does. I love my boulder friends, but sometimes, wanna smack the lot of them
no subject
Date: 2007-08-26 05:20 am (UTC)yup. they can shove their sanctity up their ass. you invade my home, i put a really big hole in your forehead.
I've read accounts of people being sued or worse by the intruder. That's just wrong.
in the UK, you're prosecuted criminally for it now, and i think that's utterly reprehensible.