Lawrence Hunter Explains the 2nd Amendment

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Just another extremist who thinks in black and white in a world dominated by gray. This holds for extremists at both ends.

It's much easier to attack the extreme arguments when you're an extremist.

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

What does a government do after it nukes all its people and the US is a nuclear wasteland/

The US military cannot take down a 300 million armed guerilla army, they couldn't even handle Vietnam.

Originally Posted by glocke12

the insurgents in Afghanistan have done a good job of standing up to us..

It's an interesting scenario, because in both cases, the United States was the invader of two countries that had long-running insurgencies. By the time the US arrived, the Vietnamese had been fighting for more than 20 years. In Afghanistan, insurgents there had 30 years to learn how to fight. And, in both cases, outside help allowed the insurgencies to defeat tanks and helicopters.
Iraq might be instructive, but it has the same messy reality of our status as invaders, the structure of Saddam's government and its fall, and the addition of Iranian help with IEDs.

Also, of note, North Vietnam had a professional military, which is completely different from the Viet Cong insurgency or the army one would expect to raise made of everyone who bought a AR-15.

If one really wants to understand what a modern insurgency would look like, review Syria, where the government has the capability to launch artillery and air strikes against an insurgent population.

Of course, if we recognize the modern security state, we also see a system that would probably behead an insurgency before it got started by arresting the leaders and using every method at its disposal to paint the insurgency as criminals. To understand this, see what happened to the peaceful Occupy movement. A bunch of hippies got hit with teargas and rubber bullets, and then arrested. Imagine that same structure, but amp up the violence.

And, that's assuming that you could actually get the AR-15 owners to gin up. I think most of them would stay home since they've slept through or applauded attacks of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[MadeTheSwitch]

A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution

What a bunch of crap this Mr. Hunter writes. Using that logic we should have no laws at all because any laws is "the man" trying to keep us from being free.

Left out of this discussion of freedom however, is always the freedom of the victims of gun violence to not be shot, and to not be murdered. I ask Mr. Hunter and people here that think like him some questions: Where's THEIR freedom? Where was the freedom for 20 little kids to grow up and live their lives? Where is the freedom for their families to have peace of mind and not have to bury their kids? Where is American's freedom from gun violence?

Those are the lost freedoms people should be concerned with. REAL lost freedoms. Not the delusional fantasy of some future lost freedom that you don't even have to begin with. (i.e. guns were an equalizer in 1776, but that is no longer the case...your entire lifetime the government has had more power than you, and yet surprise...no tyranny).

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

What a bunch of crap this Mr. Hunter writes. Using that logic we should have no laws at all because any laws is "the man" trying to keep us from being free.

Left out of this discussion of freedom however, is always the freedom of the victims of gun violence to not be shot, and to not be murdered. I ask Mr. Hunter and people here that think like him some questions: Where's THEIR freedom? Where was the freedom for 20 little kids to grow up and live their lives? Where is the freedom for their families to have peace of mind and not have to bury their kids? Where is American's freedom from gun violence?

Those are the lost freedoms people should be concerned with. REAL lost freedoms. Not the delusional fantasy of some future lost freedom that you don't even have to begin with. (i.e. guns were an equalizer in 1776, but that is no longer the case...your entire lifetime the government has had more power than you, and yet surprise...no tyranny).

Come on now, schools patrolled by armed guards, locked doors, and security systems is the definition of freedom!

[dime21]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Thank you Mr Hunter.

Unfortunately most of the readers on this website will not understand this, as they have already decided to cede all of their choices to the government so they can be "taken care of" rather than take personal responsibility for themselves.

Agreed.

Here's another good one.

Richard Posner has written an awful lot of judicial opinions. more than any judge in history. but this most recent one is likely to go down in history:

A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians.
But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be
attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in
his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a
protective order against a violent ex-husband is more
vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from
her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense
claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than
the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with
doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under
her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,
while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.
That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine
the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second
Amendment from the right of self-defense described
in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property right—a right
to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries
to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting
Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case
like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.

http://www.nraila.org/media/10814375/stevensopinion.pdf

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by dime21

Agreed.

Here's another good one.

Richard Posner has written an awful lot of judicial opinions. more than any judge in history. but this most recent one is likely to go down in history:

Go down in history? Pretty big assumption. Of course, nowadays, everything said goes down in history, as the internet never forgets. <-- that statement will go down in history.

Anyway...so is it your opinion that anyone and everyone who wants to should be able to carry a loaded gun around on them at all times, short of mental illness or criminal history?

For instance, lunch lady Mabel who lives a very quiet life, has a hard time figuring out how to calculate change, never deals with any stressful situations, yet gets frightened by a loud car passing by...is that the type of person you want to just hand a gun and expect that they will be a fully responsible gun owner with good aim and a consciousness for what is around their target?

Take my mom for instance. Not mentally ill, no criminal history. The thought of her carrying a gun would frighten the living crap out of me, and should frighten everyone. She nearly rips the door handle off when riding as a passenger in normal traffic, because every movement around her seems to her like that's the move that is going to crash into the car. Every time I change lanes, she practically has a heart attack. Walking through a Christmas light display one time, the kid in front of us kept reaching up just to touch each arch as they walked under. Every. Single. Time. my mom jumped thinking the arch was going to come down on her. NOT the type of person who should be walking down the street with a gun, no matter how "free" they should be.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Come on now, schools patrolled by armed guards, locked doors, and security systems is the definition of freedom!

Sounds oddly similar to the tyranny they are so hell-bent at fighting against.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Thank you Mr Hunter.

Unfortunately most of the readers on this website will not understand this, as they have already decided to cede all of their choices to the government so they can be "taken care of" rather than take personal responsibility for themselves.

Interesting, this, as it has long been decided that the state has no affirmative duty to protect its citizenry. I fail to grasp how a government in good conscience can divest itself from the protection of the populace, while at the same time demanding that the populace relinquish the means to do the very thing the government has decided it is not responsible for doing.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Anyway...so is it your opinion that anyone and everyone who wants to should be able to carry a loaded gun around on them at all times, short of mental illness or criminal history?

For instance, lunch lady Mabel who lives a very quiet life, has a hard time figuring out how to calculate change, never deals with any stressful situations, yet gets frightened by a loud car passing by...is that the type of person you want to just hand a gun and expect that they will be a fully responsible gun owner with good aim and a consciousness for what is around their target?

I'm far less concerned about Mabel than I am the bitter co-worker called into the bosses office to be fired.

Or the controlling, husband being told by his wife that it's over and she's seeking a divorce.

Or the guy on the highway road-raging because you mistakenly cut in front of him.

Yeah. Let's put loaded, concealed weapons in their hands.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'm far less concerned about Mabel than I am the bitter co-worker called into the bosses office to be fired.

Or the controlling, husband being told by his wife that it's over and she's seeking a divorce.

Or the guy on the highway road-raging because you mistakenly cut in front of him.

Yeah. Let's put loaded, concealed weapons in their hands.

Well, the question remains how can be develop law that will allow the wife to purchase a gun for protection, but not one for the homicidal husband. And, the bitter co-worker could have been, for decades, a reasonable firearms owner, but the stress has taken its toll.

To a great extent, we can't write laws that pick out individuals and allow the government to give licenses capriciously. There has to be standards and many people will fall under those standards until they don't.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

Interesting, this, as it has long been decided that the state has no affirmative duty to protect its citizenry. I fail to grasp how a government in good conscience can divest itself from the protection of the populace, while at the same time demanding that the populace relinquish the means to do the very thing the government has decided it is not responsible for doing.

I have seen this stated here before.
It does seem odd that the police have no duty to protect the public, if this is essentially what you mean. Clearly, if the public are not expected to be able to defend themselves effectively, then the police will have to step up to the mark.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by skunk

I have seen this stated here before.
It does seem odd that the police have no duty to protect the public, if this is essentially what you mean. Clearly, if the public are not expected to be able to defend themselves effectively, then the police will have to step up to the mark.

Of course it is the job of the police to protect the public. However, in lawsuits where plaintiffs have sued police for failure to protect them from crimes, courts have ruled that police do not have the duty (in most cases) to protect people.

This is a way of protecting the police from litigation. But contrary to what some people will have you believe, the police do serve to protect the public. You just can't sue them if their protection falls short.

Warren v. District of Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

Incident
In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Appellants' claims
Appellants' claims of negligence included:

• the dispatcher's failure to forward the 0623 call with the proper degree of urgency;
• the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside;
• the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the call received at 0642 hours.

Decision
By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by skunk

I have seen this stated here before.
It does seem odd that the police have no duty to protect the public, if this is essentially what you mean. Clearly, if the public are not expected to be able to defend themselves effectively, then the police will have to step up to the mark.

Not really. The belief that police are going to protect one and one's family is an assumption based on numerous assumptions.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Of course it is the job of the police to protect the public. However, in lawsuits where plaintiffs have sued police for failure to protect them from crimes, courts have ruled that police do not have the duty (in most cases) to protect people.

This is a way of protecting the police from litigation. But contrary to what some people will have you believe, the police do serve to protect the public. You just can't sue them if their protection falls short.

If you call 911 and say someone is in your house with a gun, police can arrive, deem it 'too dangerous' and call for a special response team. All while you wait. If you call 911 and no one shows up, as you yourself noted you are SOL. If you live in a remote area where a police response can be 30 minutes or more, the odds that they arrive in time to 'save the day' is IMO a fallacy. Even if police response is 5 minutes or less, a hell of a lot can happen in 5 minutes.

So if one wants to risk the safety of them and their family to someone they have never met, have no idea of reliability, have no idea how quickly help will arrive, and have no idea if they are skilled enough to handle the situation, they have that right. Personally, I like knowing in the event police do not arrive quickly enough that someone isn't going to harm anyone in my family. Of course, that is my personal opinion.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Personally, I like knowing in the event police do not arrive quickly enough that someone isn't going to harm anyone in my family. Of course, that is my personal opinion.

Personally, I like knowing that the probability that (a) anyone would invade my home, and that (b) if they were to do so they would be armed, is so vanishingly small that I am content to rely on my swordstick and knobkerrie alone, at least until the boys in blue arrive.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by skunk

Personally, I like knowing that the probability that (a) anyone would invade my home, and that (b) if they were to do so they would be armed, is so vanishingly small that I am content to rely on my swordstick and knobkerrie alone, at least until the boys in blue arrive.

How you want to live is your call, not mine. I don't know what the UK is like so I'm not going to speculate.

Originally Posted by NickZac

they have that right.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Originally Posted by skunk

I have seen this stated here before.
It does seem odd that the police have no duty to protect the public, if this is essentially what you mean. Clearly, if the public are not expected to be able to defend themselves effectively, then the police will have to step up to the mark.

Except there is no onus on the police to do such a thing. Protecting the public and protecting a member of the public are two very different things. Police have one duty, and that is to enforce the laws. This is what is meant by protecting the public. They have no duty to prevent you from being killed, robbed, beaten, etc., which would be protecting a member of the public.

The relevant case law can be found here, dating back to 1856.

The grand irony is that should the no-guns crowd get their way, the only people capable of protecting themselves will be the criminals that don't really care about gun laws or bans in the first place. I take note that Chicago and its most strict gun laws in the country just had their 500th murder this year. By contrast, this is more than double the number of combat deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan this year (212).

[bradl]

Originally Posted by CorvusCamenarum

By contrast, this is more than double the number of combat deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan this year (212).

And yet the number of deaths in Afghanistan (which is primarily their mission) is on par with the number with the number of murders Australia has had each year from 1996 to 2011. That number includes murder, manslaughter, with and without guns. And keep in mind that the PM in Oz signed their gun control laws after the killings in Port Arthur.

Originally Posted by thewitt

Unfortunately most of the readers on this website will not understand this, as they have already decided to cede all of their choices to the government so they can be "taken care of" rather than take personal responsibility for themselves.

It is so unfortunate that some of the readers on this website do not, can not, and will not understand the difference between control and ban, and have decided to cede the notion that control must mean ban, when in fact, it does not, nor has not.

Two can play this game.

BL.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by zioxide

I'm tired of waking up EVERY morning to news of another shooting in this country and people pointlessly losing their lives.

So you're up for banning cars too? Same number dead, just as pointless.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

So you're up for banning cars too? Same number dead, just as pointless.

Your comment is just as pointless.

Cars are made for transportation.

Guns are made for killing.

Big difference.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

So you're up for banning cars too? Same number dead, just as pointless.

So you'd rather give up your car than your gun? Seriously?

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by bradl

the difference between control and ban

When attempting to legislate control, one finds there is little to do. Those inclined to cause grave harm to others are not inclined to cooperate with legislation and will fast find ways around any restrictions; those inclined to cooperate are not those in need of control. Ergo, the only conceivably effective form of control is outright prohibition, which has time and again been shown counterproductive in practice.

Guns are dangerous. They are not useful if they are not dangerous. They are inanimate objects, consequence of their use the result of the choice of the user. You may screen purchasers, require adequate storage, license concealed carry, etc. - but when someone decides upon violent criminal action, simple theft or black-market purchase may be made and all rules ignored ... leaving the upstanding citizen "controlled" into impotence while the murderous act on free reign.

Control what? how? Does your plan for "control" really prevent the uncooperative from violent action? All "controls" I've heard suggested have been tried, no matter how stupid or clever, and have failed. How, then, do you not segue into a ban?

Insofar as "control" and "ban" are indeed different, 'tis only natural that the former soon slide the slippery slope to the latter.

[ctdonath]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Big difference.

Nonetheless, they kill the same number of Americans every year. Dead is dead, regardless of intention. So you excuse automotive deaths as a cost of "convenience"?

Insofar as "guns are made for killing": evil exists, and the one thing which by far dissuades the murderous is a would-be victim capable - not necessarily doing so, just capable - of killing first. This happens more often than you know, saving far more lives than are lost as you attribute.

----------

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So you'd rather give up your car than your gun? Seriously?

I'm saying if you're up for banning guns due to attributed deaths, then you have to stay consistent and demand banning cars too.

I'm not giving up either, as both are vital to preserving my freedom.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

I'm saying if you're up for banning guns due to attributed deaths, then you have to stay consistent and demand banning cars too.

No, because cars are much more useful everyday.

Additionally there are ever increasing safety requirements for cars, and there is a serious test you have to pass to get one.

Originally Posted by ctdonath

I'm not giving up either, as both are vital to preserving my freedom.

If we say you have to give one up, I can guarantee you'll pick the gun to give up.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

I'm not giving up either, as both are vital to preserving my freedom.

Really? How delightfully primitive!

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by ctdonath

Nonetheless, they kill the same number of Americans every year. Dead is dead, regardless of intention. So you excuse automotive deaths as a cost of "convenience"?

You just don't get it. Nobody is excusing automotive deaths. Automotive companies are working every year to design cars that are safer to drive, safer in collisions, etc. Civil engineers also are working around the country to redesign roads, dangerous intersections, etc to make them safer to drive on. But there is a big difference between a death in an automobile accident and a shooting death, mainly the fact that the automobile crash was an accident.

That said, you can accidentally die from just about anything. This includes a car accident, plane crash, train crash, fire in your house, skiing accident, swimming in a pool, choking on a piece of bone in your food, drinking too much, etc.

You can't legislate against accidents.

Guns primary uses are killing. When a person dies from a gun shot, it is almost always intentional. Decreasing the amount of guns in this country and limiting them to people who actually need them WILL bring down the number of gun deaths. Australia, Canada, and many European countries are living proof.

Let me ask you this. Everyone supports the car companies working to make cars safer, and they support Boeing and Airbus making airplanes safer, so why are so many people opposed to making guns safer and reducing the number of needless gun deaths?

Insofar as "guns are made for killing": evil exists, and the one thing which by far dissuades the murderous is a would-be victim capable - not necessarily doing so, just capable - of killing first. This happens more often than you know, saving far more lives than are lost as you attribute.

You got a source to back up this claim?

I'm not giving up either, as both are vital to preserving my freedom.

lmao. freedom? right.

And here I thought freedom was being able to live your life day to day without worrying some idiot around the next corner with his gun is having a mental breakdown and about to go on a killing spree.

But I guess "freedom" is going to have to be armed police at the doors of every public building, school, shopping mall, movie theater etc. Maybe we should ask the WWII vets from France, Denmark, etc what they think about that kind of "freedom".

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Personally, I like knowing in the event police do not arrive quickly enough that someone isn't going to harm anyone in my family. Of course, that is my personal opinion.

Some random thoughts are floating around in my mind with that statement, so now I'm curious. Does everyone in your family know how to shoot a gun, or are you the sole protector? Also I am curious if you have young kids and how you protect the guns from them (and vice versa). I also wonder if you carry the gun into the shower with you? What about a night on the town and leaving the kids with a babysitter? How does that work?

This is a question I have been wondering for a long time about gun owners. How do they keep things safe for children in the house but still accessible and ready enough to be used to fight off an intruder? It seems like the two things would be mutually exclusive and I can't imagine how you can have both but perhaps I am missing something. Then there is the situation of someone in the shower. I don't imagine most gun owners bring them in there with them, so that to me, seems to be an area of vulnerability when you could be attacked without defense. Then there is the issue of leaving the kids at a babysitter. How do gun owners with this incessant fear and need to protect their families with a firearm address that issue? Do they make sure that the house they leave the little tykes at has firearms and people that know how to use them? If someone comes into their home to babysit do they make sure they know where the guns are and how to use them? I would assume this precludes the average 14 year old girl coming over to babysit, but I could perhaps be wrong on that as well in some circles.