Right to bear arms?

[Cryozombie]

It's the way it's used that is the problem, not the weapon itself.

Too true. We have had a rash of Baseball bat beatings lately. But for some reason Bats are still legal, while the knucks I'm wearing in my avatar are not despite the non-existent knuckle crime here.

I mean, really?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Normally I agree with most of what you post, but I see the above statement (and similar statements that get "trotted out" whenever this topic comes up) as a "straw-man" argument that isn't really relevant to the discussion.

There is a huge difference between brass-knuckles, nunchaku, machetes (or for that matter, a full auto AK) and a "suitcase nuke" or a Stinger missile. I don't see anyone saying people should be able to own WDMs, but I see no reason people should not be able to own any common personal weapon (martial-arts weapons, or any knife, impact device, or firearm).

It's the way it's used that is the problem, not the weapon itself.

My 7th grade science project was a nuclear bomb. I got the plans from the local library. Wow wonder that. I could not find anything that was reactive though so I had to use to different colored foils. Even then in 78/79 people did not like the idea of a student having this knowledge.

Well having the knowledge for 30 years and I still have not made a real one. I understand what the tool could do. I say tool for it is a tool. A nuclear fission controlled properly could power many homes. It could power Naval ships and subs. It is useful. But if the proper precautions are taken for the radioactivity then the tool itself is not dangerous it is how the person uses it.

I am not supporting the original statement.

 

[Frostbite]

Because we entrust the safeguarding of EVERYONE's rights to the cops and courts.

Ironic considering rulings such as Warren v. District of Columbia and Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department state pretty clearly that police have no responsibility for your personal protection. Talk about mixed messages. It seems the government doesn't want you protecting yourself but if they fail to respond to a crime in progress, they won't shoulder any responsibility either.

 

[jks9199]

Ironic considering rulings such as Warren v. District of Columbia and Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department state pretty clearly that police have no responsibility for your personal protection. Talk about mixed messages. It seems the government doesn't want you protecting yourself but if they fail to respond to a crime in progress, they won't shoulder any responsibility either.

Make sure you read what I write -- and the context.

I said that the police safeguard everyone's rights -- not protect each individual at each moment. They're not nearly the same thing. Nor did I limit that safeguarding function to the police; the courts are the ultimate arbiters of legality and rights.

 

[Frostbite]

I'm not arguing that any one specific person has the right to police protection. I'm arguing that we all have the right to police protection. I'm also not under any delusions that the police are omnipotent. I do believe they should make a reasonable effort to respond to important crimes in progress in an effort to protect the people and property involved. The courts, however, have made it clear that the police are under no obligation to provide that service.

As far as safeguarding peoples' rights, I'd argue that their interest in preserving rights is pretty limited since their mandate is not to interpret the law, only to enforce it. It's up to the courts to decide whether peoples' rights are being properly observed, which you pointed out.

 

[jks9199]

I'm not arguing that any one specific person has the right to police protection. I'm arguing that we all have the right to police protection. I'm also not under any delusions that the police are omnipotent. I do believe they should make a reasonable effort to respond to important crimes in progress in an effort to protect the people and property involved. The courts, however, have made it clear that the police are under no obligation to provide that service.

As far as safeguarding peoples' rights, I'd argue that their interest in preserving rights is pretty limited since their mandate is not to interpret the law, only to enforce it. It's up to the courts to decide whether peoples' rights are being properly observed, which you pointed out.

The literal mandate of the police is to enforce the law; funtionally, however, they also are the first interpreters of the law. Say a law prohibits noise that "disturbs the reasonable peace and tranquility" of the community. (Yes, that is actual wording.) What's reasonable? I suppose that anytime someone complains, it's unreasonable -- but is it really unreasonable that you mow your lawn at 8 AM on Saturday, even though your bartender neighbor doesn't get home until 5 AM Friday night, and is trying to sleep? Some beat cop is going to look at it, maybe try to mediate a solution -- but probably say something like "Dude, I feel for you; I've worked mids, too. But he's allowed to mow his lawn" to the bartender. The cop is definitely interpreting the law, right?

 

[Aaron Little]

With a CCDW License in the State of KY, if I can legally own it I can legally carry it concealed. I teach in pretty much every state and I am always happy to get back to KY.

Requiring a Citizen to have a license in order to exercise a Constitutional Right is a different matter.