Why You Shouldnt be a Vigilante

[Louweasel]

It's an interesting point of view that you say that citizens need guns to protect themseles from the government. And scary that you should need armed protection from people that you voted in...

But then, the history of the american state and the details of its constitution are not something I feel I am fully informed about so I wouldn't like to say you should or shouldn't have the right. If nothing else, it's harder to take away a right than never to grant it.
I'm just glad we don't have as many. Fewer people get shot.

Although we aren't safe and shouldn't be complacent. A 14-year old girl was shot in the stomach and died in Nottingham on Friday night. They apparently have something of a gun crime problem there. But would such an event make the national news in the USA?

[Soldier]

I believe fewer people get shot because you are a less violent country to begin with. Fewer people get stabbed as well, yet you have as many kitchen knives.

The protection of guns is for if you vote someone in, and then they overstay their welcome, and begin seizing inordinate power...

[Louweasel]

I see what you mean about the government.

Very good point about kitchen knives - I wonder why americans would be more violent than english people, if this is the case. Anyone got any statistics? Or possible explanations?

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Britain is a nicer country than america. You all are so much more curteous.

[Louweasel]

I've never been to the states so I wouldn't know about y'all (see what I did there? ), but it's true, to paraphrase your compatriot Bill Bryson, that if you put a suitcase down on an English person's foot, they will probably apologise for putting their foot where your suitcase clearly needed to go.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

I've never been to the states so I wouldn't know about y'all (see what I did there? ), but it's true, to paraphrase your compatriot Bill Bryson, that if you put a suitcase down on an English person's foot, they will probably apologise for putting their foot where your suitcase clearly needed to go.

Well, maybe you ought to. I'm going on a grand fencing.net tour after highschool. I'm visiting cornflower, sabreur, you and pretty much all the other major members. On that trip, I will get to see if british folk really are as nice as everyone says. I'm looking to visit 1 salle in every country, and 1 salle in every US state.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

The second amendment was created to protect the first. The very nature of government is corrupt, and it is the people that keep it in line. When our rights to bear arms are slowly eroded, we crawl closer to what will be oppression. If the citizens can not protect themselves from the government, then who will? Taking away firearms is the first step toward the abolition of freedom. Please note that this is just my opinion, and if we are to discuss this further, let us do so in a civil manner.

Strange ... do you think it's OK for an average citizen to own a tank then? Or how about warplanes, like bombers or fighter planes? Anti-tank or anti-aircraft artillary? Ballistic missile systems?

Honestly, if you think your right to own a handgun, rifle, or even an AK-47 is protecting you if the government decided to oppress you, you're kidding yourself. The American army can reduce a city to rubble without coming within miles of it, and there's nothing that a gun-toting citizen can do about it.

Yes, the second amendment is there because there was need for a revolution once, and the British tried to keep weapons out of the hands of the revolutionaries (imagine that!) In case there's a need for a new revolution, the citizens should have a right to be armed ...

It's an out of date amendment. The difference between those arms available to the public, and those available to the military are even further apart now than they were in 1776. Having a bunch of citizens armed with handguns and rifles going against a modern day army is like having a bunch of guys with foam swords and wiffle bats go up against a group with said rifles and handguns.

It's also worth noting that there are a number of other countries in the world where the citizens enjoy, by-and-large the same sort of freedoms as you do in the U.S. To my knowledge, none of these societies have a constitutional right to bear arms. Whether or not such a right is a good or bad thing, the lack of it surely doesn't (in and of itself) lead towards an abolishment of freedom.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

The second amendment was created to protect the first. The very nature of government is corrupt, and it is the people that keep it in line. When our rights to bear arms are slowly eroded, we crawl closer to what will be oppression. If the citizens can not protect themselves from the government, then who will? Taking away firearms is the first step toward the abolition of freedom. Please note that this is just my opinion, and if we are to discuss this further, let us do so in a civil manner.

For the record, the thread wasn't posted as a threat to the second admendment. Regardless of your rights (or presumed need) to bear arms, if you shoot off a gun during a crowd control action, you face the likelihood of being shot. One of those "action and consequence" events your parents warn you to consider before doing anything stupid.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

For the record, the thread wasn't posted as a threat to the second admendment. Regardless of your rights (or presumed need) to bear arms, if you shoot off a gun during a crowd control action, you face the likelihood of being shot. One of those "action and consequence" events your parents warn you to consider before doing anything stupid.

That falls into the no **** category. What that man did was stupid, and I'm not condoning his actions by any means. I'm just stating my opinion that vigilante's are a neccasary part of society. The police keep the vigilante's at bay, while the vigilante's will take action when the judicial system is inadequate for the job and/or corrupted. They are yin ang yang. Both can be justice, both can be sin. However, they keep each other in balance. A society without the looming presence of the vigilante would become totalitarian, while a society without the police would become anarchy.

[Insipiens]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Britain is a nicer country than america. You all are so much more curteous.

I have met far fewer rude Americans than rude Brits (but then I live in Britain). But even as a a proportion of total Americans, the rude/obnoxious ones are fewer than is the case for the Brits.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Sarah

*cringes* The police are getting out of hand....

How dare you? Were you there? Have you ever had the business end of a firearm pointed at you? Have you ever been responsible for the safety of a community? The automatic assumption that the cops are the bad guys, that they can't control themselves is insulting to ALL the people who protect you and society at large

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

It's an interesting point of view that you say that citizens need guns to protect themseles from the government. And scary that you should need armed protection from people that you voted in...

Ahh, there's the rub. A great (and I do mean GREAT) many of our officials were never voted into power. They are the petty potentates that started out as clerks and wormed their way to power as chiefs of staff and such. Many of them find that they like the trappings of power...

[grotto]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

I see what you mean about the government.

Very good point about kitchen knives - I wonder why americans would be more violent than english people, if this is the case. Anyone got any statistics? Or possible explanations?

In short... FEAR and ANGER, We Americans are spoon fed fear and anger every day of our lives, Fear of blacks, mexicans, strangers, Arabs, or anger at any on of these or other groups. With a population so on the edge, with firearms very readily available, it is just a matter of time until violence breaks through. It is a vicious cycle, fed by media and politicians (both liberal and conservative.) Banning Firearms will not make a difference.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Strange ... do you think it's OK for an average citizen to own a tank then? Or how about warplanes, like bombers or fighter planes? Anti-tank or anti-aircraft artillary? Ballistic missile systems?

If you have the money and want to bother getting the proper tax stamps, you CAN own those things.

There are a whole lot of legally owned fully automatic weapons in this country, including heavy machine guns and chain guns. Exactly one has ever been used in a crime---and it was owned by a police officer. There are also people with funtional tanks and artillery pieces, antitank weapons, flamethrowers and grenade launchers. Have you ever heard of the Confederate Air Force? Warplanes. All very well-behaved.

The rest of your argument is a straw man of towering proportions, with a few other fallacies thrown in for good measure...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by gojujay

How dare you? Were you there? Have you ever had the business end of a firearm pointed at you? Have you ever been responsible for the safety of a community? The automatic assumption that the cops are the bad guys, that they can't control themselves is insulting to ALL the people who protect you and society at large

Be as angry as you want, mr. law-enforcement official.

Go ahead - sue me for thinking that there are far too many bad apples among that particular group.

I have personally seen this happen:
1. Gal at nightclub drinks far too much, passes out at table. Does not vomit, scream, or otherwise inconvenience other people.
2. Guard, about 2 m tall and of muscular build, yanks her out of the chair. While barely standing - held up by him - he hits her hard in the stomach with a boxing punch, no provocation whatsoever from her.
3. Guard drags gal, rag-doll style, out of nightclub, ripping her shirt in process. Bra becomes visible.
4. Guard hand over gal to cops standing with car right outside of nightclub.
5. Police throws in gal into car. This is done by using one of her by-now- visible breasts as a handle, her forehead hit the top of the door opening on the way in. Gal does not do anything - far to drunk for that. Car drives off.
6. I relate the whole incident to female police officer some times later, she gets angry at me for critcising cops.

I do not know any of the involved people, and I had not comsumed any alcohol whatsoever - never do. I happened to be in a position to see the whole thing well, as a spectator.

What do do?

I hate this cop with a vengenance, and am really angry that he did not get any punishment. I think that he should have been sent to jail for at least 10 years (aggravated rape is 8 years max in Sweden). In jail, I think that he should have been denied all access to telephone, visits from anyone (except lawyer), and a total letter ban. No furlough, and no right to leave his cell at all, for that matter. No access to TV, radio, other prisoners, reading matter, diversions of any kind.

This on the assumption that he does not turn any colleague in during his case, in that case he should be treated as any other prisoner.

Furthermore, the admissions to Police academy should be taken out out of the hand of police personell, and a psychological test administered so that people with a group-loyalty personality are not admitted, see #6 above and the quoted post. A police should always know that if he oversteps the law, his colleague in the car has absolutely no qualms about tuning him in. People who are liable to have such qualms should not be police in the first place, period.


Peter Gustafsson

[davtsung]

Guncontrol is one of those key words that every politician uses at some point, like family values, to promote themselves and distinguish themselves from the other guy; but who isn't for gun control or family values? Even the NRA is for some form of gun control. To some people, the right to bear arms is antiquated, and belong in a time when it may take up to 30sec to reload your musket. Our culture is the culprit behind our violence, and not guns even if we may have enough guns to arm every man, woman, child and midget. I don't own a gun, nor do I intend to. But the United States is built on a system of checks and balances of which our right to bear arms, imho, is the last line of, and remains essential. All Bush jokes aside, this country hasn't had a tyrant since we deposed the English monarchy. I don't believe we will descend into despotism or anarchy, but I think a public which is able to arm itself defines the trust that our Constitution has placed on the populace to defend democracy against domestic evils that may choose to rise(imagine Pat Buchanan in the White House if you don't feel me). If Iraq had a long standing, say 215-years worth, of the right to bear arms, there probably wouldn't be a Saddam. What happened to this man was sad, but as far I know, any man in any country who brandishes a gun and fires it in front of the police has better be prepared to be shot. Of course, thats just my opinion and I respect everyone elses.....perhaps Chris Rock is right: we don't need gun control, we need bullet control.

[MikeHarm]

Its legal to own tanks, but you have to have the gun disabled on it. Same with fighter planes etc. You can even buy disabled rocket launchers. I think its based on the anyone insane enough to want to get it working again wouldn't know how to use a machine shop theory.

There are a number of different millitant, religious and organized crime groups in the country that effectively have their own small armies, though they don't seem to be using them to fight openly at the moment. That may change if the gov becomes more hardline and aggressive towards stamping them out.

I agree that the army could reduce cities to rubble..but I think that being the cities are also filled with taxpayers and voters its not likely.

So far I haven't seen a heavy hand in populated areas even when things spiraled competely out of control like with the LA riots, though with situations where there wasn't so much risk of collateral damage to univolved parties being a danger like WACO, or with the MOVE incident govies have used a more aggressive approach it seems like.

Originally Posted by kalivor

Strange ... do you think it's OK for an average citizen to own a tank then? Or how about warplanes, like bombers or fighter planes? Anti-tank or anti-aircraft artillary? Ballistic missile systems?

Honestly, if you think your right to own a handgun, rifle, or even an AK-47 is protecting you if the government decided to oppress you, you're kidding yourself. The American army can reduce a city to rubble without coming within miles of it, and there's nothing that a gun-toting citizen can do about it.

Yes, the second amendment is there because there was need for a revolution once, and the British tried to keep weapons out of the hands of the revolutionaries (imagine that!) In case there's a need for a new revolution, the citizens should have a right to be armed ...

It's an out of date amendment. The difference between those arms available to the public, and those available to the military are even further apart now than they were in 1776. Having a bunch of citizens armed with handguns and rifles going against a modern day army is like having a bunch of guys with foam swords and wiffle bats go up against a group with said rifles and handguns.

It's also worth noting that there are a number of other countries in the world where the citizens enjoy, by-and-large the same sort of freedoms as you do in the U.S. To my knowledge, none of these societies have a constitutional right to bear arms. Whether or not such a right is a good or bad thing, the lack of it surely doesn't (in and of itself) lead towards an abolishment of freedom.

[davtsung]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

Its legal to own tanks, but you have to have the gun disabled on it. Same with fighter planes etc. You can even buy disabled rocket launchers. I think its based on the anyone insane enough to want to get it working again wouldn't know how to use a machine shop theory.

I wonder who would make the best tank... Uhlman, Allstar, LP, PBT, Duelist or Negrini? Of course Uhlman and Allstar would make identical tanks but with different colors; LP would constantly try to re-invent the wheel but they would a tank that is especially good at flick-ing shells; PBT would make an ice-blue one with unhappy child to help model it; Duelist's tank would...suck (totally heresay, totally in my own opinion) and no one would buy the Negrini tank except for me. But the real question would be if I can still get 20% off if I order online through TheFencingPost?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!



Be as angry as you want, mr. law-enforcement official.

Go ahead - sue me for thinking that there are far too many bad apples among that particular group.

I have personally seen this happen:
1. Gal at nightclub drinks far too much, passes out at table. Does not vomit, scream, or otherwise inconvenience other people.
2. Guard, about 2 m tall and of muscular build, yanks her out of the chair. While barely standing - held up by him - he hits her hard in the stoma