Discussion:
Defending Armed Self-Defense
Add Reply
Michael Ejercito
2022-01-04 14:06:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://reason.com/2022/01/04/defending-armed-self-defense/


It's easy for many people to see the harm that guns are involved in
every day in America, but much harder for them to see the harm that gun
prohibition causes.
KATHERINE MANGU-WARD | FROM THE FEBRUARY 2022 ISSUE

topicsfuture
(Illustration: Richard Downs)
Gun control laws are wrong because they violate the right to
self-defense. Gun control laws are wrong because they were historically
crafted with discriminatory intent and create racially disparate
outcomes today.

These are two distinct arguments against laws that limit private gun
ownership. Libertarians, typically among the staunchest of fans of
self-defense and self-determination, have tended to focus on the first.
But the second is also important, both on its own merits and because it
helps people otherwise concerned about discrimination understand why it
is inconsistent to support such laws.


One can make the rights argument a couple of different ways. The first
is to start from the belief, shared by many, that human beings are
endowed by their Creator (or nature, or their shared humanity, or the
universe, or even cultural patrimony) with certain inalienable rights,
the right to self-defense among them. Once that is established,
protections for those who wish to buy, keep, and use the tools of
self-defense, including guns, follow close behind.

The Founders, not ones to pussyfoot around, put keeping and bearing arms
right there in the Bill of Rights (although there, as in so many other
places in the founding documents, one last pass by an especially
pedantic copy editor could have saved the nation in general and the
Supreme Court in particular quite a bit of trouble). The Founders were,
at best, imperfect scribes of whatever rights people might in fact
possess. But they did an astonishingly good job of capturing a laundry
list of rights that the state ought not abridge, and they got them
written down rather clearly and in short order, all things considered.

One need not be convinced of the existence of God-given rights to
conclude that the harsher forms of gun control are unacceptable and
unjust rights violations. "I contend that individuals have a prima facie
right to own firearms, that this right is weighty and protects important
interests," the philosopher Michael Huemer wrote in one of the more
famous modern arguments against such restrictions. While "the right to
own a gun is both fundamental and derivative," he suggests, "it is in
its derivative aspect—as derived from the right of self-defense—that it
is most important."

The argument that the existence of a competent police force obviates the
self-defense justification for private gun ownership was made laughable
twice over last summer, first as citizens marched in protest of police
misconduct and second as law enforcement proved wholly inadequate to the
task of defending lives and businesses in the corridors of cities where
riots broke out.

And rights can and should be applied as equally as possible across the
population, with as few exceptions as possible.

This basic rights argument is often laid out at length in part because
it deserves the real estate. But it is not the only argument against gun
control. And in emphasizing the rights argument, those who seek to
protect the practice of armed self-defense risk being unpersuasive to
the not-insignificant percentage of Americans who don't already happen
to agree on a list of rights and their scope.

Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up
Paying Him $16,000
Most, but not all, of that group is concerned instead with harmful
consequences. And it's easy enough to see the harm that guns are
involved in every day in America. It's harder to see the harm that gun
prohibition causes.

In "Gun Control Is Just as Racist as Drug Control" (page 18), Senior
Editor Jacob Sullum makes this second type of argument, noting that it
seems to be much easier for politicians, pundits, and activists on the
American left to see how the war on drugs hurts everyone, but especially
black people, and to move from there toward strategies for ending or
reducing that harm. Yet too many remain stubbornly unconvinced on guns.
"Progressive politicians nowadays overwhelmingly oppose marijuana
prohibition and criticize the war on drugs," Sullum writes, "in no small
part because of its bigoted origins and racially skewed costs. Yet they
overwhelmingly favor tighter restrictions on guns, even though such
policies have a strikingly similar history and contemporary impact."

It is unlikely, to say the least, that the United States has eradicated
racism entirely from its police forces. But one need not believe that
there is a single bona fide racist remaining anywhere in law enforcement
to be concerned about the racial implications of gun control.
Historically, the fact that the burdens of enforcement and sentencing
tend to fall heavier on black Americans often struck officials as a
feature, not a bug. And we live in a world shaped by the policies those
officials adopted.

Disparate outcomes are not themselves definitive evidence that a law is
unjust or that a legal remedy is needed, but they are a helpful clue
that something may be wrong in the system and that the way we are
building and applying our principles deserves more scrutiny.

There are many different reasons to engage in political argumentation.
One is to rally the troops—to both firm up and confirm preexisting
views. This is not merely signaling or recreation, though it can be both
those things. Human beings enjoy repetition—lots of it, if most people's
Spotify, churchgoing, and movie-viewing habits are any indication—and
there's nothing wrong with that. Reason often returns to the same
topics, rehearsing the case for and paths to a freer and fairer world in
ways that will appeal to readers with whom we are already in broad
agreement. Longtime subscribers may even remember a 1985 cover story
titled "Gun Control: White Man's Law" that made many of the same points
we're making 37 years later.

But there's also the much harder task of changing minds. The way to do
this—perhaps the only way to do this—is to use a shared underlying view
as the thin end of a wedge. In this case, the thin end of a very
important wedge has been honed by concerns about harm, and the way to
change minds is to probe for inconsistencies in the views of those who
do not yet share your conclusions. Rights talk doesn't always have the
same power to leverage existing beliefs into new insight and
interpretations.

This issue of Reason is full of arguments that ask readers—in this case,
mostly left-leaning readers—to think about the consistency in the
formulation and application of their beliefs, not just about gun and
drug control, but also about income inequality ("Against Champagne
Socialists," page 28) and the proper role of the courts ("What
Progressives Get Wrong About Judicial Review," page 42).

Ralph Waldo Emerson may have insisted that a foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds, a notion that has given aid and comfort to
hypocrites for more than a century. But a desire for internal
consistency can also drive meaningful change.

Not every argument offered as a way to bridge those gaps in consistency
can or should rest on the same deep principles. Instead, the goal (an
ambitious one, to be sure) is to figure out how to talk to each other
and come to shared conclusions about how to move forward.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
1.AAC0832
2022-01-05 02:33:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You don't have to defend defense.

If everybody knows you're a soft target they
WILL show up and give you the "Clockwork Orange"
treatment and then take all your stuff. If you
die, well, you won't worry about the stuff ...

Disarmament campaigns are, at their heart, pro-THUG
campaigns. Many advocates KNOW this - and view it
in the "social justice" framework, the poor and
downtrodden getting their revenge. Of course the
society then collapses and the revenge never ends ...

Best to always keep the thugs guessing. Anybody
MIGHT have kick-ass defense measures right now
so they have to be very careful. Change that
perception though and ........
Michael Ejercito
2022-01-05 03:01:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 1.AAC0832
You don't have to defend defense.
If everybody knows you're a soft target they
WILL show up and give you the "Clockwork Orange"
treatment and then take all your stuff. If you
die, well, you won't worry about the stuff ...
Disarmament campaigns are, at their heart, pro-THUG
campaigns. Many advocates KNOW this - and view it
in the "social justice" framework, the poor and
downtrodden getting their revenge. Of course the
society then collapses and the revenge never ends ...
Best to always keep the thugs guessing. Anybody
MIGHT have kick-ass defense measures right now
so they have to be very careful. Change that
perception though and ........
Gun control had been advertised as a policy necessary to keep us
safe from the street thug and the gangbanger, and rank-and-file
supporters of gun control laws do so because they fear being mugged by a
street thug, or their kids shot to death in front of a school in a
drive-by shooting by gangbangers.

And it makes sense. Not enough evidence that a street thug did a
mugging? Put him away for possessing an unregistered handgun. Not enough
evidence a gangbanger gunned a child down uin a drive-by shooting? Put
him away for possessing a high-capacity magazine.

But as we have observed for one and a half years, the same people
pushing gun control laws do not want to punish the street thug and tghe
gangbanger.


http://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/state/washington-lawmakers-file-bill-reducing-penalties-for-drive-by-shooters/article_539c27a0-f75a-52b0-9b56-1499c25e7db6.html

This brings to mind Elie Mystal.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-gun-rifle/

Ammosexuals may argue that lethal phallic symbols are the only things
that compensate for their feelings of fear, but I know who these people
will be shooting at. It’ll be me. It’ll be my kids. I have the right to
ride home from a Mets game without worrying that a hysterical white man
is going to shoot me for breathing on him with my broad West Indian nose.

that might be true in the swamps of Cajun country, but that certainly is
not true in the subways of NYC.

Elie Mystal has a reputation for accusing cops of being racist.

And yet he complains that the Supreme Court overturning the Sullivan Law
would "would take the discretion out of the system and basically mean
that anybody can get a permit if they fill out a form".

It is like, for these people, cops are Klansmen with badges who
habitually gun down unarmed Black men, except when they enforce gun
control laws.

Like, consider a cop in a n office, with a framed, autographed picture
of David Duke, a copy of the Turner Diaries on his desk, and a
Confederate flag hanging on the back wall.

He then sees an application for a pistol permit, and must use his
discretion to decide if the applicant gets a permit.

He suddenly undergoes a Magical Girl Transformation®™.

The David Duke picture becomes a Martin Luther King, Jr. picture.

The Confederate flag becomes a Black Lives matter flag.

The Turner Diaries becomes Dreams of my Father.

Not a trace of white supremacy remains- until he makes his decision on
the permit application.

He then goes back to being a Klansman with a badge.


Michael
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
1.AAC0832
2022-01-05 05:04:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by 1.AAC0832
You don't have to defend defense.
If everybody knows you're a soft target they
WILL show up and give you the "Clockwork Orange"
treatment and then take all your stuff. If you
die, well, you won't worry about the stuff ...
Disarmament campaigns are, at their heart, pro-THUG
campaigns. Many advocates KNOW this - and view it
in the "social justice" framework, the poor and
downtrodden getting their revenge. Of course the
society then collapses and the revenge never ends ...
Best to always keep the thugs guessing. Anybody
MIGHT have kick-ass defense measures right now
so they have to be very careful. Change that
perception though and ........
    Gun control had been advertised as a policy necessary to keep us
safe from the street thug and the gangbanger,
If they can smuggle in vast quantities of fentanyl and heroin
and meth they can smuggle in vast quantities of pistols, rifles,
grenades and RPGs too. No controlling the thug access to
weapons, none at all. And if caught - no-bail release !
and rank-and-file
supporters of gun control laws do so because they fear being mugged by a
street thug, or their kids shot to death in front of a school in a
drive-by shooting by gangbangers.
Of interest, the stats now show that the hottest market for
quality heavy firepower is now the mid/upper-class "liberals".
Despite what they SAY, they KNOW they've unleashed the
thugicane and are ultra-paranoid.

Which also means they're INVESTED in owning arms now.

They don't buy the cheap shit either.
   And it makes sense. Not enough evidence that a street thug did a
mugging? Put him away for possessing an unregistered handgun. Not enough
evidence a gangbanger gunned a child down uin a drive-by shooting? Put
him away for possessing a high-capacity magazine.
They don't seem to put away thugs for ANYTHING these days.
They are a protected class - darlings of the ultra-left,
anarchists and BLM. It's all "social justice" you see ...
   But as we have observed for one and a half years, the same people
pushing gun control laws do not want to punish the street thug and tghe
gangbanger.
http://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/state/washington-lawmakers-file-bill-reducing-penalties-for-drive-by-shooters/article_539c27a0-f75a-52b0-9b56-1499c25e7db6.html
This brings to mind Elie Mystal.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-gun-rifle/
Ammosexuals
Not interested. I don't give a shit who screws who
or why or what silly clothes they wear. Basically
I'm a small-L libertarian. Ain't many of us left
these days.

WOMEN seem to have had it with trannies though ...
faux-females especially.

All the weidosexual propaganda/brainwashing smells
of "grooming" tight young ass to me .... confuse,
confound, disorient, and JUMP THEIR BONES ......

Loading...