Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Rob Lingo
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 years ago
in The wrong argument on It looks Obvious
To Zoolish's point. The situation in places like Lebanon is not created by the presence of an armed citizenry, but in the loss of the consent of the governed, plus, these societies have not established an effective and peaceful means for attaining that consent, i.e. representative "democracy", tempered by the rule of law.
2 years ago
in The wrong argument on It looks Obvious
"it is crucial for the government to impose its monopoly of the means of violence so it can perform its duty to protect human rights."
Your position is confusing. You say that you believe in some right to bear arms, yet you believe the government should maintain a monopoly on the means of violence. That seems to me would require an absolute denial on the right to have any kind of gun (as well as knife etc., we are beginning to see this develop in the UK).
It is clear to me that our founders (based on their philosophical traditions)never intended for the state to hold an absolute monopoly on the use of force, otherwise why have the 2d Amendment?
I believe the 2d Amendment had two purposes:
1. To ensure that individuals maintained the right to defend themselves and their property.(which the government cannot do for us and still have a free society in any meaningful sense) This was both against domestic criminals and foreign invaders.
2. To ensure that, as free citizens, we maintained the ability to resist tyranny from our own government. Admittedly, in the age of modern military weaponry this may have been rendered impractical. However, I point to Rogen's examples from Lebanon and elsewhere as well as our current situation in Iraq.
I believe that, in our founder's view, the government's monopoly on the use of force referred to the initiation of force, or the offensive use of force, to accomplish its goals. It does not refer to denying free citizens of the means (or the right) to use force for defensive purposes. And, as importantly, the government's power is limited by the rule of law (the Constitution) and by the consent of the governed.
Part of the tragedy at VA Tech is that the students and faculty had it so ingrained in them that they neither could or should do nothing to defend themselves, but should simply wait for the government to come save them. Which the government inevitably failed to do.
Your position is confusing. You say that you believe in some right to bear arms, yet you believe the government should maintain a monopoly on the means of violence. That seems to me would require an absolute denial on the right to have any kind of gun (as well as knife etc., we are beginning to see this develop in the UK).
It is clear to me that our founders (based on their philosophical traditions)never intended for the state to hold an absolute monopoly on the use of force, otherwise why have the 2d Amendment?
I believe the 2d Amendment had two purposes:
1. To ensure that individuals maintained the right to defend themselves and their property.(which the government cannot do for us and still have a free society in any meaningful sense) This was both against domestic criminals and foreign invaders.
2. To ensure that, as free citizens, we maintained the ability to resist tyranny from our own government. Admittedly, in the age of modern military weaponry this may have been rendered impractical. However, I point to Rogen's examples from Lebanon and elsewhere as well as our current situation in Iraq.
I believe that, in our founder's view, the government's monopoly on the use of force referred to the initiation of force, or the offensive use of force, to accomplish its goals. It does not refer to denying free citizens of the means (or the right) to use force for defensive purposes. And, as importantly, the government's power is limited by the rule of law (the Constitution) and by the consent of the governed.
Part of the tragedy at VA Tech is that the students and faculty had it so ingrained in them that they neither could or should do nothing to defend themselves, but should simply wait for the government to come save them. Which the government inevitably failed to do.
2 years ago
in The wrong argument on It looks Obvious
Do you really think that if CCW holders had been allowed to have their guns on campus there would be "more mess and more shooting by hysteric crowd that make a bad day into a complete hell?" This is simply a gratuitous assertion based on no evidence but your own bias against individualism and self-reliance.
As evidence to the contrary, I present the shooting in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in which two armed students brought the rampage to quick end and prevented it from becoming the "complete hell" which was in fact the result at Virginia Tech yesterday. Indeed, why do we not have mass shootings and gunfire from an "hysteric crowd" in any of the places, all over the country, where permit holders are carrying?
I also take issue with the assumption that a mentally disturbed gunman is completely incapable of any rational thought. It is no accident that these mass killings almost always occur in gun free zones.
The DC snipers, for example, were deranged killers, yet still took the precaution of using stealth and long range. If they were completely incapable of acting rationally, (or if they could be assured that no one would fight back) they would have simply walked up to people and shot them.
As evidence to the contrary, I present the shooting in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in which two armed students brought the rampage to quick end and prevented it from becoming the "complete hell" which was in fact the result at Virginia Tech yesterday. Indeed, why do we not have mass shootings and gunfire from an "hysteric crowd" in any of the places, all over the country, where permit holders are carrying?
I also take issue with the assumption that a mentally disturbed gunman is completely incapable of any rational thought. It is no accident that these mass killings almost always occur in gun free zones.
The DC snipers, for example, were deranged killers, yet still took the precaution of using stealth and long range. If they were completely incapable of acting rationally, (or if they could be assured that no one would fight back) they would have simply walked up to people and shot them.
