🚀 go-pugleaf

"Koroush Ghazi" <King_of_Kings@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > >> Whoa you've gone right off track. I'm the first to condemn
> > >> so-called "social nannyism" because we experience it in
> > >> Australia to a much greater degree than you guys do.
> > >> But in modern society you implicitly give the monopoly
> > >> of extreme force to the Police.

WRONG!  You mean YOU do.  The USA does not work that way: this is
government of, by, and for the people.  And there is NO Constitutional
right to police protection!  There cannot be:  it cannot be guaranteed
they will arrive in time to stop or deter crime.


"Koroush Ghazi" <King_of_Kings@bigpond.com> wrote:
> You don't have a choice. You live in a State which controls many
> aspects of your life. You can pretend it isn't happening but it is.

You're a hoot, Koroush.  A free state "controls many aspects" of one's
life for the common good.  That does not mean it controls *every*
aspect, banning and criminalizing personal freedoms and subjugating its
people.


"Koroush Ghazi" <King_of_Kings@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Who else but the police force will protect you?

I protect myself!  In case of a violent crime, the police CANNOT get
there until AFTER the crime has occurred.  "People have not only the
right but the responsibility to protect themselves."  (A cop said that.)

Last year an LAPD officer said to me, "We are hire from the human
race," meaning they are, after all, only human.  More police = more men
with guns on the street.  IMO, everyone deserves the same right to
protect himself.


> > >> Do you remember an incident in Hollywood a few years back
> > >> when a couple of armed robbers were so well protected the
> > >> police couldn't shoot them down?

If you're referring to the North Hollywood bank robbery, the police
killed one; the other killed himself.  They were "well protected"
because they were well-armored, not well armed.  They moved sluggishly
because they were wearing steel plates under their body armor.  The
machine guns they had were ALREADY illegal, so any point you were
trying to make with the above is feckless.

That robbery was a good demonstration of:
(1) how criminal minds do not obey prohibitions;
(2) how existing gun laws are not enforced;
(3) how ill-prepared the police were.  In the overwhelming majority of
bank robberies (we should know in California), the robbers have left
the scene by the time the police get there.  The police weren't
expecting to find the robbers there, let alone see them saunter over to
a car, get automatic weapons out of the trunk, and start spraying.  The
robbers could have been stopped with head shots.  (LAPD motorcycle cops
have been carrying shotguns with folding stocks since that robbery.)

Koroush, why don't you go blame gays for AIDS and sexual crimes like
child molestation and see how far you get?  The public has learned to
leave them alone for behavior that is harmless to others.  Now leave us
legal gun owners alone for the same reason.  Go after criminals.


> Again, every citizen already subjugates the right to use extreme
> force to the State.

No, *you* do.  You're projecting your imagination onto others.  We
still have government of, by, and for the people.  (Who is the gun
banner from your country trying to rise in the UN?  Scary.)


> The State structure evolved over many millenia...it isn't
> perfect, but if you have a better alternative, please put it forward.

We are living it now, thank you.


> I don't think individuals taking the law into their own hands is a
> solution because it depends on the mental stability of ever gun owner.

Mental stability is not that much of a problem, despite the news
business' hawking to the contrary.  Been to an art museum lately?  The
valuable paintings are right there for all to see --and touch!  But
*most* people have enough sense to not touch!  Responsible behavior is
the only legitimate check on absolute freedom.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.