Why You Shouldnt be a Vigilante

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Neil

How is it a straw man? What are the fallacies you're referring to?

Oh, you just had to poke the gorilla now, didn't you?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Oh, you just had to poke the gorilla now, didn't you?

I'm in a procrastinating/suicidal mood

[gojujay]

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 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

A lot I could pick apart. All I'll say is, walk a mile in their shoes.

[Schiavona]

A lot of forum members don't see the need for people to be able to protect themselves from their 'government', though this need has been demostrated in the past-in living memory! Try researching the history of unions in the 20th cent and the measures taken to try to stop them.

Beyond that, or closer to home, there is the idea in American law(decended from English Common Law) that people have the right to defend themselves. Oddly enough, some people see no problem in denying or restricting access to tools made for this-guns. In my mind it's no different than saying,"Sure you have freedom of speech, but you need to get a permit for it and go through a background check". And, "Of course you can write or say anything you want, but you can't have a telephone or computer or typewriter and anything you do manage to write or say will be monitored".

Of course, many countries aren't so reflexively against government monitoring them. You'd by amazed at the ruckus photo-radar traffic tickets raises.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Neil

Maybe, but if the American government used the army to put down a political rebellion, I'll bet the people won't be able to resist effectively with their flamethrowers and tanks they have stored in their garages. This was Kalivor's point.

Luckily, they wouldn't have to do so. You need not look farther than Iraq to see that.

A modern mechanized army is good at fighting other armies of the same sort, not so good at fighting guerillas. Now add to that the fact that use of said army in the US would entail destroying a good deal of the very productive capacity any despot would need in order to stay in power...

Crushing a rebellion in America would be mostly a matter of infantry slogging. And that could be fought so long as the insurgents had access to equivalent infantry arms.

We succeeded in gaining independence from Britain because we used essentially the same weaponry that the British had. Imagine if, due to gun control, we had had to conduct the rebellion using spears and bows and arrows. We would likely have been no more successful against British armies than the American Indian tribes later were against the US Army.

How is it a straw man? What are the fallacies you're referring to?

When someone is arguing the utility of the right to keep and bear arms in a civil society, and the response is "I suppose we should be allowed to have ballistic missiles, then!" that's a straw man exaggeration of the actual argument. Much easier to knock down than the actual position. ( Believe it or not I've actually heard nuclear weapons brought up in this regard. )

Other fallacies:

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.

Audiatur et Altera Pars. There is a premise left unstated, to wit, that "the American army" could or would be so employed by a despotic regime. I cannot think of a single example in which a modern army has been so used by a government against a popular rebellion. Because to do so would be to destroy the very resources needed to prop up said government.

Imagine levelling Pittsburgh or Chicago because 1 in 10 inhabitants were part of an insurrection. Sure, you get rid of the rebels. You also get rid of a couple of million of other people, each of whom has relatives elsewhere who will now turn against the government. You destroy the steel industry, rail lines, road termini, telecommunications hubs, vast amounts of raw materials and manufactured goods, etc. Just a wee bit counterproductive.

No guerilla war in modern history has been won by the ruling regime cutting off its nose to spite its face. Just not going to happen. So the thesis crumbles.

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.

Fallacy of division. It assumes that a property of some thing ( countries which enjoy freedom ) must apply to its parts ( in this case the US ). It is not demonstrated that the latter is in fact an identical case and that its course would be the same as those of other countries under similar circumstances.

[jeff]

This debate lacks assessment or alternative futures and their risks. We've discussed a future US population using their arms to fight a totalitarian government (whether the US government gone bad, or a foreign occupier). That's one hypothetical situation, and you can follow the line that shows having weapons in that situation would be useful for conducting the guerrilla war.

What we haven't discussed are alternative futures, no less hypothetical, where "the center does not hold", and government institutions are weakened and replaced by anarchy, gangs, and local war lords. This is just as plausible, considering that this is a scenario you see in places like Afghanistan, and that there are armed "militias" in the US that reject government authority. In this scenario, widespread availability of weapons could easily be seen decreasing the safety and liberty of our citizens.

Point being: if you're going to base your defence of widespread availability of arms to scenario #1, you have to also take under consideration scenario #2.

Inq: I think the phrase you're looking for re "ballistic missiles" is reductio ad absurdum.

[Inquartata]

Reductio, though, is characterized by the assertion that something will result in absurd consequences. In the example cited I think it's the argument itself which is exaggerated to absurd dimensions. The consequences predicted ( by implication ) seem to be the same as those putatively resulting from accepting the basic argument, ie that gun ownership is permissible...

At least, I don't think that Kalivor was maintaining that the RKBA would result necessarily in private ownership of ballistic missiles...

As to the alternate scenario you posit, it's interesting, but---it isn't the one the Founders feared or expected, so it's not the one for which they planned. It is possible to multiply indefinitely the possible futures in which arms ownership might prove deleterious, but like the Founders I consider them less likely than overweening central government. The latter has a much longer history with states like ours---warlordism seems to afflict nations of other sorts for the most part, ones with different conditions and in different stages of develoment.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The rest of your argument is a straw man of towering proportions

Yes, but it was a well-built straw man. I liked his hat.

[Soldier]

Can we at least keep him around until Halloween?

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Yes, but it was a well-built straw man. I liked his hat.

I like his hair.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

What we haven't discussed are alternative futures, no less hypothetical, where "the center does not hold", and government institutions are weakened and replaced by anarchy, gangs, and local war lords. This is just as plausible, considering that this is a scenario you see in places like Afghanistan, and that there are armed "militias" in the US that reject government authority. In this scenario, widespread availability of weapons could easily be seen decreasing the safety and liberty of our citizens.

Another branch of the "center does not hold" scenario is instead of anarchy, armed citizens supporting local governments. History-even in the 20th cent-is full of cases of armed citizens comming to the aid of police or even the armed forces, though I haven't heard of any lately. Of the three men who went up that tower in Texas after our first 'sniper' two were uniformed officers, the third was a citizen with a rifle.

[MikeHarm]

You want to see what will happen to us, just look at what happened to Russia when the money ran out.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

In my mind it's no different than saying,"Sure you have freedom of speech, but you need to get a permit for it and go through a background check". And, "Of course you can write or say anything you want, but you can't have a telephone or computer or typewriter and anything you do manage to write or say will be monitored".

In my mind there's a huge difference, because telephones aren't specifically designed for killing people.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

When someone is arguing the utility of the right to keep and bear arms in a civil society, and the response is "I suppose we should be allowed to have ballistic missiles, then!" that's a straw man exaggeration of the actual argument. Much easier to knock down than the actual position. ( Believe it or not I've actually heard nuclear weapons brought up in this regard. )

Regardless of kalivor's flippant comment , this is not a straw man. The argument is not "Look, these crazy people are saying we should all have nuclear weapons!" The point is that there needs to be a bit of interpretation of the 2nd amendment - it doesn't say "the right to bear arms of sufficient effectiveness to enable guerilla war against an illegitimate government". Most (sane?) people would argue that the amendment doesn't give people the right to own nuclear weapons. So where do you draw the line? Chemical/biological weapons? Tanks/helicopters/artillery? Automatic/semi-automatic weapons? Pistols/handguns?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Audiatur et Altera Pars. There is a premise left unstated, to wit, that "the American army" could or would be so employed by a despotic regime. I cannot think of a single example in which a modern army has been so used by a government against a popular rebellion. Because to do so would be to destroy the very resources needed to prop up said government.

Imagine levelling Pittsburgh or Chicago because 1 in 10 inhabitants were part of an insurrection. Sure, you get rid of the rebels. You also get rid of a couple of million of other people, each of whom has relatives elsewhere who will now turn against the government. You destroy the steel industry, rail lines, road termini, telecommunications hubs, vast amounts of raw materials and manufactured goods, etc. Just a wee bit counterproductive.

No guerilla war in modern history has been won by the ruling regime cutting off its nose to spite its face. Just not going to happen. So the thesis crumbles.

I disgree that there were any unstated assumptions. Sure, wiping out a city may not be a smart (or fiscally responsible) thing to do, and it might be difficult to think of circumstances in which this would happen. But that doesn't mean wiping out the city is not possible, or the cirucmstances don't exist.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Fallacy of division. It assumes that a property of some thing ( countries which enjoy freedom ) must apply to its parts ( in this case the US ). It is not demonstrated that the latter is in fact an identical case and that its course would be the same as those of other countries under similar circumstances.

I can't see a fallacy here. The point that is being made is that it is possible to have a democratic society with similar (not identical, but similar) freedoms to those in the USA, without a constitutional right to bear arms. This isn't used to say that "therefore, the freedoms/democracy the US currently enjoys will be unchanged if the 2nd amendment is removed." Don't go building your own little straw guy

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Can we at least keep him around until Halloween?

Only if you can ward off the flying monkeys.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by kalivor

Yes, but it was a well-built straw man. I liked his hat.

You've got hats in your belfry, mate.

( The o-pun-ing gambit in yet another pun war? )

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Neil

Regardless of kalivor's flippant comment , this is not a straw man.

Sure it is. The intent is to point to the obvious absurdity of the notion of private ownership of ICBMs and invite the readers to extend the absurdity to the private ownership of firearms. The ICBM man-of-straw is easier to knock down than the real one being argued.

The point is that there needs to be a bit of interpretation of the 2nd amendment

Why?

- it doesn't say "the right to bear arms of sufficient effectiveness to enable guerilla war against an illegitimate government".

Indeed it does not, because the Amendment was written by a "committee", and is the result of compromise between conflicting opinions and wishes...and probably a good deal of horse-trading ( "you vote for my idea here and I'll support yours on that other clause" ). Moreover, the more specific a law the more problematic it can sometimes become: the one you wrote above, for instance, might well be read to exclude hunting weapons---not something the Founders were likely to have wanted.

Most (sane?) people would argue that the amendment doesn't give people the right to own nuclear weapons.

And since no one can obtain them, and probably no one could afford them, the problem is pretty moot...

So where do you draw the line? Chemical/biological weapons? Tanks/helicopters/artillery? Automatic/semi-automatic weapons? Pistols/handguns?

At the highest possible point, IMO.

I disgree that there were any unstated assumptions. Sure, wiping out a city may not be a smart (or fiscally responsible) thing to do, and it might be difficult to think of circumstances in which this would happen. But that doesn't mean wiping out the city is not possible, or the cirucmstances don't exist.

It's "possible" that we could be invaded by space aliens, too. But we want to keep things within the realm of reality when we argue policies, no? Require that every conceivable contingency be addressed and you'll never get anything accomplished.

I can't see a fallacy here.

Well, I can't see you, either. Does that mean you don't exist?

The point that is being made is that it is possible to have a democratic society with similar (not identical, but similar) freedoms to those in the USA, without a constitutional right to bear arms.

No, the point is whether it is possible to keep them in such societies should the government turn tyrannical. I would argue that it is not...

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Neil

Regardless of kalivor's flippant comment , this is not a straw man. The argument is not "Look, these crazy people are saying we should all have nuclear weapons!" The point is that there needs to be a bit of interpretation of the 2nd amendment - it doesn't say "the right to bear arms of sufficient effectiveness to enable guerilla war against an illegitimate government". Most (sane?) people would argue that the amendment doesn't give people the right to own nuclear weapons. So where do you draw the line? Chemical/biological weapons? Tanks/helicopters/artillery? Automatic/semi-automatic weapons? Pistols/handguns?

Actually, my understanding of the amendment was specifically to enable guerilla, or any kind of, war against an illegitimate government. So if you need to draw a line, I would draw it at "the right to bear arms of sufficient effectiveness to enable guerilla war against an illegitimate government."

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Sure it is. The intent is to point to the obvious absurdity of the notion of private ownership of ICBMs and invite the readers to extend the absurdity to the private ownership of firearms. The ICBM man-of-straw is easier to knock down than the real one being argued.

No, it isn't. And that isn't the intent. The intent is to give the answer to your next question....

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Why?

See above : because otherwise, the 2nd amendment could be read as guaranteeing that everyone should be able to own as powerful and destructive weapons as possible.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It's "possible" that we could be invaded by space aliens, too. But we want to keep things within the realm of reality when we argue policies, no? Require that every conceivable contingency be addressed and you'll never get anything accomplished.

A despotic regime using the army to destroy a city is not even close to being on par with being invaded by aliens, and is within the realm of reality, IMO.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well, I can't see you, either. Does that mean you don't exist?