We've been here before

[mattiasNYC]

This is what I don't understand about America.  What is this big deal about protecting yourselves from the government?  I have never heard about any other modern nation talk about protecting itself against its government.

What would you do, fight your own armed services?  Are you seriously thinking that a variety of handguns, rifles and maybe  a few automatic weapons would be any use against your army or the national guard??  If you think you could prevail against them, then what chance do you think your armed services would have against the Russians, Chinese or IS?

The only thing I can think of is that you would hope your army would refuse to fight you and that would cause the government to resign, but has anyone really thought this through?  How did this concept ever gain traction?  Is it a legacy from the civil war?

best
DaveP

I completely agree with the above.

I wonder if future technology will make this "better" or "worse" (I'm thinking of semi- or fully-autonomous machines).

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is what I don't understand about America.  What is this big deal about protecting yourselves from the government?  I have never heard about any other modern nation talk about protecting itself against its government.

I won't provide a full list but the short list includes Cuba recently rehabilitated in the media more than reality.  North Korea, Iran, etc (many more).  All of these governments have imprisoned and even executed their own citizens to squelch dissent.

What would you do, fight your own armed services? 

Posse Comitatus act signed into law in 1878 prohibits use of US military to perform domestic police activity.

As I've posted before I think few truly understand the 2nd amendment but it gives power to the people bear arms against internal or external threats.

While this seems dated and archaic the risk of too much federal power is always with us.

Are you seriously thinking that a variety of handguns, rifles and maybe  a few automatic weapons would be any use against your army or the national guard?? 

National guard (not covered by Posse Comitatus) actually reports to the state governors so is arguably a force that could oppose a federal military encroachment.  The 14th amendment  after out civil war addressees some more restrictions on government use of force. 

If you think you could prevail against them, then what chance do you think your armed services would have against the Russians, Chinese or IS?

We could hold out own, against any world military but engaging against other world powers would have a huge cost of blood and treasure. China has been ramping up military spending for years and is now building naval bases in the Pacific to extend their military influence. Putin has taken advantage of western acquiescence to expand into the Ukraine.

The only thing I can think of is that you would hope your army would refuse to fight you and that would cause the government to resign, but has anyone really thought this through?  How did this concept ever gain traction?  Is it a legacy from the civil war?

best
DaveP

This topic has been under continuous reflection by thoughtful people for hundreds of years. Not in the mainstream media that appeals to the lowest common denominator, so I am not surprised you don't hear about it on your local TV. You are more likely to see some embarrassing news items about the US.  There is always something embarrassing to talk about.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is what I don't understand about America.  What is this big deal about protecting yourselves from the government?  I have never heard about any other modern nation talk about protecting itself against its government.

What would you do, fight your own armed services?  Are you seriously thinking that a variety of handguns, rifles and maybe  a few automatic weapons would be any use against your army or the national guard??  If you think you could prevail against them, then what chance do you think your armed services would have against the Russians, Chinese or IS?

The only thing I can think of is that you would hope your army would refuse to fight you and that would cause the government to resign, but has anyone really thought this through?  How did this concept ever gain traction?  Is it a legacy from the civil war?

best
DaveP

I completely agree with the above.

I wonder if future technology will make this "better" or "worse" (I'm thinking of semi- or fully-autonomous machines).

The jury is still out on that, and for the record there are more kinds of government force than guns and bullets.

I was momentarily optimistic that the WWW and social media would supplant the free press as a counterbalance to government secrecy and misbehavior.  In some oppressive regimes social media is actually helping communicate dissent but bad governments try to control that too,  A more subtle co-opting of social media by government and politicians is to try to use it to manipulate the masses.

This is currently in flux and I want to be optimistic... but the dumbed down public, and political strategy to divide us seems pretty effective.

JR

 

[DaveP]

I'm beginning to see that this concept gains a hold because of the sheer size of America and the fact that it is a federation of states rather than a single entity like France or even the arguably the UK (because its small enough).  You refer to your own state as your seat of government but the federal government is remote and not so accountable, so not to be trusted, am I on the right track?

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm beginning to see that this concept gains a hold because of the sheer size of America and the fact that it is a federation of states rather than a single entity like France or even the arguably the UK (because its small enough).  You refer to your own state as your seat of government but the federal government is remote and not so accountable, so not to be trusted, am I on the right track?

DaveP

One of the defining principles for good governance is that decisions affecting local matter are better decided locally with a robust discussion with the people affected..  "The road to serfdom" by Hayek articulates the qualitative benefit from having decisions made at low level. Federal Bureaucrats can't magically make single decisions that satisfy millions of people.

The UK has IMO gone a little too far in the tolerance of local Shariah courts. I appreciate the concept but Shariah law seems at odds with a lot of western law. A nation can only have one set of laws that proscribe rights and acceptable behavior.

Yes the scale and diversity of our nation influences the local vs federal decisions making. There are pros and cons to this... We often end up with a hodge podge of 50 different regulators for things perhaps more efficiently managed at the federal level. The Fed is tasked with resolving commerce disputes between states.

Some of us are upset about the increasing intrusion of the federal government into more local matters.  If I had a fish pond in my yard the EPA would try to apply the clean water act to it to tell me what to do in my yard.  (I better not tell them about my rain ditches).

JR

 

[DaveP]

OK that makes sense, the UK is heading in the direction of more local government too.

The Muslim community have requested Sharia courts, but as far as I know they have not been officially sanctioned,  in the areas where they are concentrated, no doubt they go on behind closed doors.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

OK that makes sense, the UK is heading in the direction of more local government too.

The Muslim community have requested Sharia courts, but as far as I know they have not been officially sanctioned,  in the areas where they are concentrated, no doubt they go on behind closed doors.

DaveP

It's been a while since I read about this but as I recall it was set up as a form of arbitration that parties could agree to follow to settle disputes instead of using the existing legal system .

There have been isolated reports of honor crimes, not just in GB but in informal (illegal) Shariah decisions here too.

JR

 

[emrr]

Our state government has done a lot recently to limit local control. 

I don't know anyone who thinks of the federal government as remote, with state being the principal controlling entity.  The majority of taxation is federal, and that dictates actual policy and spending. 

 

[Krcwell]

I'm beginning to see that this concept gains a hold because of the sheer size of America and the fact that it is a federation of states rather than a single entity like France or even the arguably the UK (because its small enough).  You refer to your own state as your seat of government but the federal government is remote and not so accountable, so not to be trusted, am I on the right track?

DaveP

I think you are on the right track here, America is large and diverse. There is no one size fits all solution to our problems, as the same law that is effective in densely populated urban areas is an unimaginable burden in rural areas, and vice versa. But damn it if our federal government won't try...

However, the idea of the people's right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government goes much further back than the civil war, it's the basis on which the country was founded via revolution against the British monarchy. Civilian arms not only provide the means of defense, but are also a strong deterrent against tyranny run amok. You might be able to convince your enlisted army to attack their fellow citizens, but an armed populace greatly raises the stakes for those who would be on the front lines.

Posse comitaus aside, one needs look no further than the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent history to understand the efficacy of a motivated rebellion/citizenry against a well trained military. On paper, that should've been over quickly with minimal loss of blood and treasure. However, conventional arms only go so far in unconventional armed conflict. The US military had every advantage, except for intimate knowledge of the local battlefield and proper motivation. You can never underestimate the psychological aspects of armed conflicts, especially when people are fighting for their lives. How well can you motivate your enlisted armies to attack their fellow citizens? My guess is that would pale in comparison to the motivation of a citezenry under siege.

 

[sahib]

OK that makes sense, the UK is heading in the direction of more local government too.

The Muslim community have requested Sharia courts, but as far as I know they have not been officially sanctioned,  in the areas where they are concentrated, no doubt they go on behind closed doors.

DaveP

Dave,

This is a request of some utopics  and certainly does not represent the wishes of British muslim population in general. Progresive muslim leaders make this clear at every opportunity.

But most importantly, somehow linking this to UK's move towards local governance would be a huge mistake.

 

[DaveP]

Hi Sahib,

I agree with you, we can't have a country inside a country, I believe in total integration  which is something I'm trying to do here in France as  a migrant!  You have to love the country you are going to, not try to change it back to where you came from. ???

best
DaveP

 

[DaveP]

Hi Krcwell,

Well I'm glad I'm making progress!  I really had no idea, until I joined this forum, that the Revolutionary war still loomed so large in  the American Psyche.

Britain has not been invaded for 949 years so the memory has dimmed somewhat

best
DaveP

 

[sahib]

Hi Sahib,

I agree with you, we can't have a country inside a country, I believe in total integration  which is something I'm trying to do here in France as  a migrant!  You have to love the country you are going to, not try to change it back to where you came from. ???

best
DaveP

Hi Dave,

Again, we are talking about a handful of utopics. When I lived in London in mid '80s  these utopics were dozen for a penny, lecturing on the corners of Hyde Park  and nobody paid any attention.  But thanks to the media we are where we are now.

However, on the other hand the current situation with asylum seekers in Europe and UK has long gone past the dangerous level. We are talking about radiation spillage here. In the UK, I am afraid this a present from the past  labour government. We had the first hand experience in our building. These guys were total scum bags and living on level of benefit that is beyond comprehension.

 

[Krcwell]

Hi Krcwell,

Well I'm glad I'm making progress!  I really had no idea, until I joined this forum, that the Revolutionary war still loomed so large in  the American Psyche.

Britain has not been invaded for 949 years so the memory has dimmed somewhat

best
DaveP

I send all of my British colleagues a copy of the Declaration of Independence every Fourth of July. They usually respond with "meh, we were happy to rid ourselves of that nuisance anyways."

You had made a point earlier in comparing the US to other "modern" countries. Keep in mind that the US is less than 250 years old. I've always been blown away when I travel in Europe and see buildings and such that date back several hundred years. The company I work for is based in a small town in the UK called Malmsbury, and there's one hotel in town. Part of the hotel's structure dates back to the 1500's, and it's right next to what I believe is the oldest still standing church in England, which dates to the late 1200's. We don't have nearly the breadth of history as Europe, so we gotta go with what little (comparatively) we have!

Plus, our founders had the benefit of learning from all Europe's mistakes.  ;D

 

[DaveP]

You had made a point earlier in comparing the US to other "modern" countries. Keep in mind that the US is less than 250 years old. I've always been blown away when I travel in Europe and see buildings and such that date back several hundred years. The company I work for is based in a small town in the UK called Malmsbury, and there's one hotel in town. Part of the hotel's structure dates back to the 1500's, and it's right next to what I believe is the oldest still standing church in England, which dates to the late 1200's. We don't have nearly the breadth of history as Europe, so we gotta go with what little (comparatively) we have!

The oldest church in England is this one not far from you. Dates from 594 AD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Martin%27s_Church,_Canterbury

This one I know well from my time in Essex, dates from 654 AD  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapel_of_St_Peter-on-the-Wall.

Then of course there is Stonehenge which is 5000 years old, but its probably most of America's heritage too as your founding fathers were English ;D

I think you are setting a good example, some Americans probably need to travel more ;D  Apart from the middle east, the rest of the world seems to live quite comfortably without a gun under the bed, but I think we have done this one now.

best
DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

You had made a point earlier in comparing the US to other "modern" countries. Keep in mind that the US is less than 250 years old. I've always been blown away when I travel in Europe and see buildings and such that date back several hundred years. The company I work for is based in a small town in the UK called Malmsbury, and there's one hotel in town. Part of the hotel's structure dates back to the 1500's, and it's right next to what I believe is the oldest still standing church in England, which dates to the late 1200's. We don't have nearly the breadth of history as Europe, so we gotta go with what little (comparatively) we have!

The oldest church in England is this one not far from you. Dates from 594 AD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Martin%27s_Church,_Canterbury

This one I know well from my time in Essex, dates from 654 AD  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapel_of_St_Peter-on-the-Wall.

Then of course there is Stonehenge which is 5000 years old, but its probably most of America's heritage too as your founding fathers were English ;D

Speaking of old... China has a rich very old cultural past, but some different twists in governance in recent centuries.

I think you are setting a good example, some Americans probably need to travel more ;D 

The bad joke is that Americans learn geography by going to war, these days I'm not sure even that teaches them anything. I am repeatedly embarrassed by the ignorance of young Americans, while I don't know that we have a corner on all the world's ignorance.

Apart from the middle east, the rest of the world seems to live quite comfortably without a gun under the bed, but I think we have done this one now.

Weapons are a force multiplier that become more useful during an absence of rule of law. In early American history, especially in the sparsely populated west, self help was often the only recourse to protect property or persons. Regarding the American gun culture an interesting data point is that Colt (a very famous gun maker) is filing chapter 11 bankruptcy. Perhaps a personal problem.  I am surprised the PC police have not protested the Swiss. While I don't know if they sleep with their rifles under the bed or in their closet, but they seem to sleep comfortably while being widely armed.

Agreed in a well policed modern civilized society there should not be much need for armed self -defense, while this thread was incited by a vicious assault in a house of worship that should have been safe.

I am a little disappointed that scientists have not been able to improve upon self-defense technology. Taser has made great strides in non-lethal force projection ,  while these seem limited in range/effectiveness (don't take a taser to a gun fight).  Guns will go away eventually, replaced with better, safer technology,  but not in my lifetime.

JR

PS: Karate or fighting "empty hand" (without weapons) originally became popular because of restrictions  against owning/carrying weapons. While back in those days being armed meant swords and the like.

best
DaveP

 

[dmp]

I just read through this whole thread and noticed it hasn't been mentioned that this latest assailant had a felony arrest, yet appears to have gotten a firearm through a private sale. Why do people object to designing laws that would get guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?
I own several firearms and I am against gun laws restricting ownership rights for law abiding citizens, but I do not understand the opposition to well-defined laws that close loopholes, like private sales & gun shows. Can someone help me understand this?
It seems like a reasonable compromise would be pretty easy to achieve for gun regulation.

And as a side note - the handgun decision by the supreme court from a few years ago is a good read for the biggest example of judicial activism I have ever read.  The judicial contortions by Scalia ended with the conclusion that the 2nd amendment was in reference to law enforcement - not the military, which is why we don't have a constitutional right to own RPGs, m-80s, nuclear bombs, etc...   

 

[Krcwell]

I just read through this whole thread and noticed it hasn't been mentioned that this latest assailant had a felony arrest, yet appears to have gotten a firearm through a private sale. Why do people object to designing laws that would get guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?
I own several firearms and I am against gun laws restricting ownership rights for law abiding citizens, but I do not understand the opposition to well-defined laws that close loopholes, like private sales & gun shows. Can someone help me understand this?
It seems like a reasonable compromise would be pretty easy to achieve for gun regulation.

And as a side note - the handgun decision by the supreme court from a few years ago is a good read for the biggest example of judicial activism I have ever read.  The judicial contortions by Scalia ended with the conclusion that the 2nd amendment was in reference to law enforcement - not the military, which is why we don't have a constitutional right to own RPGs, m-80s, nuclear bombs, etc... 

I haven't seen anything definitive about how the assailant acquired the weapon used.  I've seen stories that say his dad gave it to him, that he bought it with a background check, etc...  I ended up tuning most of that out as the misinformation was getting overwhelming.

Was there ever a definitive determination as to the source of the weapon?  Can you possibly post a link?

 

[dmp]

My post was inaccurate. He purchased the gun from a store (legally - since his arrest was classified as a misdemeanor), not a private sale. This complicates the question substantially - as closing the private sale loophole wouldn't have done a thing. 

Here are details:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sc-gun-shop-workers-don-remember-dylan-roof-article-1.2268092

 

[JohnRoberts]

Thank's for the correction... It is human nature after such horrendous events to look for some government remedy. Sometimes sh__  just happens and there aren't easy answers.

I believe we need a calm continuous review of all law that affected this tragedy but I would also expand the scope of that review to include inspection of all gun violence including in poor urban areas (like Chicago and several large cities.).  Then we need to factor in privacy laws and effectiveness of mental health practice.

There is surely a lot of work to do, but no easy simple answers. Do not believe the talking heads that argue that this is simple. They are just trying to manipulate low information audiences to advance their agenda. 

JR