NO gun confiscation

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The police generally do not protect people from bodily harm; they respond after the fact. So if Peter were entirely unhindered in protecting himself from bodily harm, I don't much doubt that he would be able to do a better job of that than the police.

[/ QUOTE ]

The notion of the police (also) acts as a deterrent. If me and a dozen buddies gang up on Peter and beat him up or kill him, the police will go after us. Without any police, this would not be a consideration. My gang's only consideration would be if Peter has a gang of his own!

It is silly, even if only arithmetically, to argue that one's strength is equal to the strength of many. It is equally silly to argue that the threat of one's force is stronger than the threat of the force of many.

[Peter666]

Guns are the great equalizer. It is possible for a more intelligent and better skilled individual to defeat many lessor individuals. I claim to have this superiority, thus I should be left alone, unhindered in my self defence. Only sheep need police.

Great point by MMMMM too.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Guns are the great equalizer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only between previously unequal parties. If I am the world's strongest man and you are a weakling, but you pull out a gun, well, this would make you equal in strength to me, if not stronger!

If you are already stronger than me, your gun only makes things more unbalanced.

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible for a more intelligent and better skilled individual to defeat many lessor individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes - but I hope you realize that this situation (i.e. one person defeats many persons) is, generally, the exception rather than the rule.

[ QUOTE ]
I claim to have this superiority, thus I should be left alone, unhindered in my self defence. Only sheep need police.

[/ QUOTE ]If indeed you are superior in this ability, then you are exceptional. Which, in turn, means that the majority of people, those who are not exceptional like you, need the police.

You are free to defend yourself on your own against any and all attackers. Other citizens are free to call the police.

[MMMMMM]

Of course the concept of police in general, as well as courts and punishments for violent crime, deters some crime. I didn't think you were primarily arguing *deterrence* with Peter666; but rather, *prevention*.

One carrying a gun is more likely to be able to thwart a mugging of his own person, than are many police who are not on the scene at the moment (and the police can't be and aren't everywhere). Further it is not the mere threat of force in the case of carrying a gun--the mugger may actually get shot if the threat is not deterrent enough. If the police are not on the scene before the incident then all they and the courts can offer is the potential threat of punishment, whereas Peter can actually shoot to defend himself if need be.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The police generally do not protect people from bodily harm; they respond after the fact. So if Peter were entirely unhindered in protecting himself from bodily harm, I don't much doubt that he would be able to do a better job of that than the police.

[/ QUOTE ]

The notion of the police (also) acts as a deterrent. If me and a dozen buddies gang up on Peter and beat him up or kill him, the police will go after us. Without any police, this would not be a consideration. My gang's only consideration would be if Peter has a gang of his own!

It is silly, even if only arithmetically, to argue that one's strength is equal to the strength of many. It is equally silly to argue that the threat of one's force is stronger than the threat of the force of many.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to break it to you, Cyrus...

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales the Supreme Court held that victims do not have the right of the police to respond even in the presence of a restraining order.

The Police are not required to help you at all. There is no individual right to the police only a collective right to public safety.

Other cases that ruled that the Police have NO OBLIGATION to protect you:

South v. Maryland
Bowers v. DeVito

So if that makes you feel comfortable, I feel real sorry for you. Not only do they come after the fact, but they are not required to show up at all.

I choose to defend myself and my family.

-Gryph

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I claim to have this superiority, thus I should be left alone, unhindered in my self defence. Only sheep need police.

[/ QUOTE ]If indeed you are superior in this ability, then you are exceptional. Which, in turn, means that the majority of people, those who are not exceptional like you, need the police.

[/ QUOTE ]

Police can be a useful tool in a total crime prevention strategy. They can serve in both investigative roles and in prevention, depending on how they are deployed. The right of self defense implicity includes the right to employ others to aid in such defense.

Of course, there's no reason that only the state can provide such police forces.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ."

[/ QUOTE ]
The "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment therefore has nothing to do with any rights of individuals to own or carry firearms but merely assures the "continuation" and "effectiveness" of state militias, the sole end by which the amendment "must be interpreted applied." So spoke the Supreme Court 66 years ago in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), a position that the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal and numerous state courts have consistently echoed since then. Ever wonder why Bush hasn't said anything about appointing judges who adopt the gun nut interpretation of the Second Amendment, or why neither side much cares about Roberts' views on the Second Amendment? It's because everyone in power knows that the law is well-settled: the Second Amendment doesn't really do anything, least of all protect any indidual right to "bear arms."

Reiterating the point for the umpteenth time in 1980, the Supreme Court held that gun control laws do not "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980). See also Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968) (finding lack of substantial federal question on grounds that Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states"); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992) ("The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia"); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101 (9th Cir. 1996) (following "our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment . . . does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen"); United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984) ("the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right"); Quillici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983) ("the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment"); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) ("Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm"); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973) ("it must be remembered that the right to bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution"); United States v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34, 37 (8th Cir. 1972) ("it has been settled that the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms").

The only notable decision to the contrary, United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 US 122 (2002), actually upheld a gun confiscation law on the grounds that Texas had justified abrogating the right in the case before it. Judge Parker, concurring in Emerson's result while dissenting over the Second Amendment argument, noted that the court's analsysis of the Second Amendment was "dicta and is therefore not binding on us or on any other court."

As the term "militia" suggests, the notion of the Second Amendment conferring any individual right is laughable, so much so that the NRA itself rarely invokes the Second Amendment in it's various court challenges to gun control laws. No member of any military force, much less any particularly "well-regualted" one, has an individual right to "bear arms" in the time, place and manner of his or her choice. Even if one argued that all citizens should be considered de facto militia members, the states and federal government could easily enforce any gun regulation by giving gunowners a choice: surrender your weapons or report for drill every morning at five. Grenades, machine guns, fighter aircraft, tanks and nukes are all "arms," yet no one in their right mind doubts the Congress and the state legislatures have every ability to criminalize their possession by ordinary citizens. The same power extends to every form of gun.

U.S. POW's remain in North Vietnam; the oil companies have supressed the formula for turning water into gasoline; the Second Amendment ensures the "right to bear arms," and is, according to one NRA fundraising appeal, a target of a secret plot by Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein to repeal it.

Pray the Republicans can keep a lid on these crazies while they exploit them.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only do [the policemen] come after the fact, but they are not required to show up at all. I choose to defend myself and my family.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where do I say that you should NOT defend yourself and your family?

If you can legitimately defend yourself and your family, go ahead and do it.

All I'm saying, and I'm challenging anyone to prove otherwise, is that the many are almost always stronger than the one. Some people dispute this -- yes, that's right, in an "advanced poker players' forum"...

If, through laws, regulations, agreements, you can get many to defend you against the threat of one or many, this would be almost always optimal.

If instead you have to stand up alone to defend yourself, than that would not be optimal - but you gotta do what you gotta do.

[Peter666]

That's right. If I need help, I should be able to call private emergency services that suit my situation. Let the government dudes help the other cases. I don't need to get into an unprovoked barfight and then waste all my time and money convincing a judge that I should be acquitted on charges, because the police charge everybody in the incident.

I noticed on my travels to Eastern Europe that high class facilities like casinos and night clubs had private security that dealt with everything. No police involvement unless people died...and even then....That's free market security.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, its because of the "martial law" or whatever they have to declare in Louisiana. Did you think you had rights under martial law or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Just because a government executive declares "martial law" does not mean that citizens forfeit their rights protected by the Constitution.

Nice to see that another right-winger has abandoned the cause of liberty in America. Once again, the libertarians stand alone against the 1984 state that both the right and left wish us to live under for different reasons, although similar means.