Re: Self Defense - a Mindset or a " right"?


hcannon wrote:
> > Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> > > hcannon wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or should it have to be "granted" at all?
> > >
> > > I see it as a duty. Otherwise I might as well just go and commit
> > > suicide right now. Refusal to defend myself is all the same in my
> > > books.
> > >
> > > That's my personal take on it. There are intelligent people the world
> > > over who do not see things that way. That's their decision to make for
> > > them.
> > >
> > > The "right" to self-defence is innate - it can't be granted or revoked.
> > > You may be punished by civil society for doing so, but that's just a
> > > factor that enters into your decision to defend yourself.
> > >
> > > Pierre
> >
> > Yes. There are moral rights, and legal rights. We not only have the
> > moral right ot defend ourselves, but as you point out, we have the duty
> > to do so. An intelligent but oppressive government realizes that it
> > must protect the citizens
>
> It does not care if it defends its citizens.
>
> (or at least pay lip service to doing so) if
> > it is to remove their means to defend themselves. When the US starts
> > passing laws that require cops to protect us, and it passes SC muster,
> > then I will fear what their intentions.
> >
> Much of its intentions are already well known - Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry,
> Fienstein, Schumer, etc.
> What is SC muster?

Sorry. US Supreme Court muster (passing standards).

A seriously oppressive government in the US (if it comes about) will do
so in stages, I would think. They will have to convince the US
population that they are safe ("We'll protect you from muggers and
terrorists. Don't you worry your pretty little head about that
stuff."). So the first stage will be to pass laws (perhaps at the state
level) mandating or defining a primary goal of police as "a reasonable
level protection" of the citizens, or some such. Then they can
simultaneously be passing laws making it more difficult for us to
protect ourselves. Some of the proposed and/or passed guns laws and
weapon laws.

I can see martial arts being controlled in a forseeable (if not
necessarily inevitable) future. Dojos will be for "self-defense only".
Teachers will be held responsible for their students' behavior. That
sort of thing.

Oppressive governments are often worried more about dangerous ideas
than hand weapons. Maybe we'll give up some weapons to the Democrats,
then library reading lists to the Republicans. They can take turns,
nibbling away at our current rights.

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Self Defense - a Mindset or a " right"?
    ... Pierre Honeyman wrote: ... > I see it as a duty. ... > factor that enters into your decision to defend yourself. ... passing laws that require cops to protect us, and it passes SC muster, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >> matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery. ... > There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the ... > "protect" the programmer also. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Protecting Your Children Knowing these Laws
    ... protect your children. ... These US laws apply to all criminals living ... the Supreme Court unanimously declared the CDA ... The Child Online Protection Act (COPA): ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Overnighting in Wal-Mart with dogs
    ... Laws aren't written to protect the public. ... effect is to hopefully lessen the odds of a crime being committed. ... merely punish. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >> There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the ... programmer produces. ... > artists that firmly believe they ...
    (comp.programming)
Loading