- Mar 2, 2009
I haven't heard of those book till now, they sound pretty interesting if they have the same kind of social commentary as the Terry Pratchett novels.
I think it has more to do with the fact that some folks have little concern for civil rights which they personally have no use for --- like the person who never votes who supports the stripping of voting rights from others, often with similarly flippant phrases like "democracy is a failure" and "all politicians are crooks anyways".Noelveiga said:Sorry, this may be my being sane and European, but I have the hardest time empathising with a guy whose idea of freedom is carrying a gun wherever he wants.
In point of fact, most civil rights are not recognized "in most places", either officially or as a matter of practice. Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights is far from universally accepted. If we reduce the value and reality of civil rights to a level of global consensus, then there are few to none at all.Noelveiga said:I am very much concerned with protecting the civil rights of others that I don't use, but that is working from the premise that carrying firearms is a civil right in the first place. It is not recognized as such in most places
Quite irrelevant, as it IS a Constitutional right here, and here is where the issue lays at hand.it is definitely not a Constitutional right here
To the contrary, the civil right to keep and bear arms has a very long history of legal existence, and indeed is one of the key original concepts underlying the European notion of what historically constitutes a "freeman". Particularly in England and Germany, citizens who were not serfs or slaves routinely carried arms both for hunting and self-defense. In terms of realpolitik, governments considered it more expedient to recognize the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, so as to ensure a bulk of armed patriots which could be called upon to serve in defense of the state at need.and it has no legal or logical reason to be treated as a civil right anywhere.
Both factually and historically inaccurate: the US Constitution's Second Amendment actually draws its existence from then-extant British law. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the American Second Amendment does not GRANT the right to keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes this right as a pre-existing condition.It is only included in the US Constitution
Thoroughly incorrect; citizens defending themselves with firearms has both historically and currently provided deterrence against criminal acts. This should not be entirely surprising, given the simple fact that police carry guns for largely the same reason. According to FBI statistics (Clinton era), fewer than 5% of successful firearms defenses involve a shot being fired. Of all successful defenses where shots were fired, over 95% were warning shots or resulted in non-lethal wounds.it certainly serves no realistic part in the social or political makeup of the country
Quite the opposite: it is both naive and disingenuous to presume that a government which unleashes supertechnological warfare and guided missiles upon its own populace is not ALREADY in dire threat of being toppled. Moreover, troops commonly react poorly when ordered to fire upon their own countrymen. They will do so if they are convinced that the state, and not the public, are in the right, but even the Soviet Politburo discovered to their detriment that troops can and will disobey orders when they believe the government is acting criminally.(presuming that privately owned guns would make a difference in case of tyranny, political oppresion or other such events in an age of supertechnological warfare and guided misiles is either naive or disingenuous).
To suppose that self-defense is a "convenience" is to presuppose that all the various forms of assault are merely "inconvenience".And here's where you make a second valid point. You have a gun, you've used it to defend yourself, hence the gun is convenient.
In reality, most firearms used in American crimes are obtained illegally. Of these, a surprisingly small minority are obtained through illegal over-the-counter purchases such as at a gun shop or gun show. Instead, over two-thirds of all illegal firearms in the United States are obtained from police and military armories. The next-largest source of illegal weapons is Mexican smuggling connected to drug traffic.Not all of that is due to the presence of firearms in society, but it clearly has a bearing on the accessibility of guns to commit crimes.
That, in a phrase, is simply tactically foolish.Unlike in the US, it is not common practice to unholster a gun unless you're being fired upon here.
You're quoting an urban myth.It is shameful that you expect a cop to aim a gun at you by default.
Welcome to Arizona, where concealed-carry is now a right with no need of permit. Even if someone IS carrying concealed, it is illegal to pull a gun on them without other reasonable cause.Because the assumption is that anybody can carry a concealed gun.
Sorry, but we've had gun bans in various areas, which almost invariably become the high-crime areas and in particular the concealed-gun areas as well --- since carrying openly is also a crime. Your assumption of the removal of assumption is poorly founded.The truth is, when you ban guns, that assumption goes away, we know that for a fact.
Apparently, your definition of "lethal force" is "you're not dead, ergo it wasn't lethal". Of course, were I not to have use a firearm in self-defense, I might well have ended up dead --- being as that a beating from half-a-dozen assailants has been known to have that effect on persons, as well as being subjected to a hail of debris while driving at night.you managed to fend off attackers that, from your own description, were not using lethal force
So a potentially lethal confrontation is ended peacefully without anyone being harmed, and you jail the target of assault.Good for you, I guess, but where I'm from, had you used that gun in any way, short of them carrying guns as well, you would have ended up in jail
Of course it did. You're still alive. Now, had he had six of his mates along and wanted to see your blood in the gutter because he and they were drunk and you were available --- well, we mightn't be having this conversation.I still think that went down *exactly* like it was supposed to.
No, THAT'S disingenuous, removing the matter from actual civil rights to the generalization of "civil rights support". And the reality is that civil rights differ dramatically amid the wide range of nations you've just referenced.Noelveiga said:That is disingenuous. I feel the Western countries(i.e. North America, Western Europe and actually a chunk of Asia) are universally recognized as developed countries with very similar standards on civil rights support.
Again, your standard here has dropped: if we merely accept a nation's being a signatory to any or all of these treaties and declarations, then Hussein's Iraq and current-day Iran must be added to your list of nations with "very similar standards".There are plenty of international treaties and declarations ensuring this.
By which you clearly feel that civil rights are a direct descendant of whichever government sets a given standard, so long as other governments effectively form a rough consensus in their own standards.The standards for those territories are clearly a good benchmark for how legitimate a civil right is
And yet, you brought up the Constitution and its inapplicability to the rest of the world as part of your argument for why Mr. Rosenberg should obtain no sympathy.Well, it's irrelevant for the legal case the topic is about
A fallacy which relies on ignoring my point that freemen differed specifically from slaves and serfs, who were not citizens, but instead property. A further fallacy is the notion that an actual right should be considered a mere privilege, solely on argument that the aforementioned right has not been fully extended to all parties by a government authority.To begin with, from a democratic perspective, the link between being a freeman and being allowed to be armed is not technically a right, but a privilege, in that it's not universally recognized to all citizens.
Sorry, but a Constitution is simply a core set of laws for a nation. Were we to eliminate as "obsolete" all law as equally old as the United States Constitution, you would effectively destroy the larger bulk of Western common law itself, which is by far the older body. Indeed, we would have to throw out basic precepts upon which those laws were based, such as the millenia-old Greek philosophies.The US Constitution, being the first of its kind, still built in some precepts that became obsolete
Primarily because every other democratic country has had multiple successful revolutions. In very few cases were any of these launched on basis of disagreement with the previous Constitution. Instead, they were usually launched because the existing government of the time failed or refused to uphold its existing social contracts, and new Constitutions were put in place after the given revolution expressly to address the previous governments' excesses.Elsewhere, every democratic country has approved more than one Constitution
You incorrectly presume that a democracy cannot be socialist. You further miss the point that the European democracies which I referenced are quite socialist, and that disarmament of the general populace remains a standard socialist theme. That it has been enacted in various nations through democratic process is simply irrelevant.Modern western democracies, not modern socialist governments.
*falls over laughing*there isn't a single socialist government left in Europe