|
MercTech -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (3/5/2014 8:11:02 AM)
|
Subject vs Citizen, a thought:
The monarch owns all withing the realm by virtue of divine right and his "subjects" own property and conduct business his leave.
The "citizen" is a part and responsible for the welfare of the state and delegates his responsibility for the day to day management of the realm to his elected representatives.
On gun control:
A lot of the anti gun sentiment seems to be attempting to force regional mores and customs on all by the threat of force and violence. But, what is right and proper for Manhattan may be unworkable and inappropriate for Wyoming.
We are not a homogenous nation. Why are many so surprised when resistance is met from attempts force tribal customs on everyone?
Often you see the mindset that one should not use violence to defend themselves as that is the job for the police. The bottom line is that the origin of professional police forces in the U.S. was the hiring of guards to defend property (Norfolk, VA - 1797). And recent (2005) legal precedents have enforced the concept that police are not obligated to defend individuals from home invasion or assault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
It boils down to the fact that without the ability to defend yourself and your property you can find yourself at the mercy of the biggest scariest thug around. No one is obligated to help you but may do so by custom, if they are available. (Have you ever lived where a max speed police response was 45 minutes or more?) Attempting to make weapons restrictions that would be reasonable in a paper thin walled tenement universal with rural areas with miles between structures is sheer arrogant elitist hubris. One size never fits all.
My home town recently (as in the last year) had a huge furor and protests over "legalizing gun totin"". Laughably, what the legislation actually was about was giving police forces a succinct definition of what constituted "concealed carry". The previous laws were so vague in definition that a shotgun carried in a locked case in the trunk of a car could have been interpreted as a "concealed carry". The guideline given to law enforcement at one time (1970s) was that if 1/4 of the longest length of a weapon was covered it was considered "concealed". Yep, boys, that buck knife in the sheath on your belt that you use while working construction was a "concealed weapon". The off duty security guard who stopped for gas on the way home with his work weapon still on his hip found out about that silly definition when he was arrested for carrying concealed without a permit (1/4 of longest length => any holster made a gun concealed). It is absolutely hilarious how the more liberal press made so much money twisting the words around to make a legal definition of concealed carry look like legislation to legalize vigilantes. BTW, "open carry" is legal here but limited by "public endangerment" which has a good bit of discretionary determination by local officers. A pistol on the hip while out gathering deadwood for the fireplace won't be blinked at (you load with rat shot for the snakes that like to hide under brush piles) but packing heat to the grocery can get you a trip to the Sheriff's office.
It may be obvious that I have objections to imposition of rules and regulations that don't make sense for local conditions being imposed from afar. And most gun control movements try to do this on a nationwide level when it is truly a local and regional issue. If you want to ban handguns in your crowded urban creche, go for it. If you want to tell the farmer that he isn't allowed to defend his property when there is no one else able to do so I'll tell you where to pack it.
As a parting word I'll leave you with an advertising slogan from just after the Civil War, "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."
|
|
|
|
