7 ms·

Governments have different powers than citizens and different roles in society. Do they abuse those powers often? Yes, they have since this country was formed,

by edias 13y ago

Governments have different powers than citizens and different roles in society. Do they abuse those powers often? Yes, they have since this country was formed, nothing new here. What does smokeyj's comment add to the discussion? At best it's emotionally charged and douchy way of saying you don't like the government.

Jayschwa 13y ago
> Governments have different powers than citizens I disagree with this. If an individual does not have the right to do something, neither does a collective. We all individually have the right to defend ourselves, for example. As with most things in society, it's more efficient to "outsource" the task to specialists like police. However, if individuals do not have the permission bits to do something like administer non-consensual anal probes, neither should law enforcement.
- mburns 13y ago
  >If an individual citizen does not have the right to do something, neither does a collective An individual does not have right to punish another person in response to a crime after the fact (A.K.A. revenge). Collectively, we do.
  - Jayschwa 13y ago
    I believe revenge on an individual level can be morally legit.
    - mburns 13y ago
      Well that's fine, but we're not comparing personal opinions. This tangent was brought to us by smokeyj's ramblings about the injustice of governments doing bad things with unequal punishment, and edias explaining why he's full of it. Reality is well established that government plays a different role than individuals and is explicitly given permissions we refuse to citizens by way of the Constitution. People can't own ICBMs or atomic bombs, either, which is their sovereign right if not for the oppressive government.
  - kika 13y ago
    Collectively we do justice, not revenge. Justice differs in one important aspect - we give the other party the ability to prepare and defend itself.
  - Intermernet 13y ago
    As someone with personal experience with this, I can say that "revenge" is the wrong reason for punishment. Punishment handed out by society should be about dissuading other members of that society from behaving against the society's best interests. Anything else is personal. As soon as "revenge" comes into it, the self-perpetuating downward spiral of justifying bad behavior as punishment for bad behavior begins. Individuals in society who gain pleasure from the punishment of others, whether that punishment was deserved or not, should realize they're really just being sadistic.
- kika 13y ago
  Btw, what always escaped me about US weapons laws is that police can have 10+ round mags, full auto weapons, etc, but the individual can not. As opposed to military, police fights basically the same criminals as we, mere mortals, do. The only difference is that this fight is their job. Not that I want a full auto weapon :-)
  - jmccree 13y ago
    And note, that on a federal level, the only restriction are machine guns manufactured after 1968. In many states, full auto before 1968, grenade launchers, etc are fully legal for individuals to own. The ban on machine guns manufactured after 1968 is clearly unconstitutional. (See US v Miller, where a short barrel shotgun was ruled not protected under the 2nd amendment as it was NOT a military weapon)
    - hga 13y ago
      Actually manufactured after 1986, a poison pill in the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA). 1968 is when the Gun Control Act (GCA of '68) passed, pretty much completely changing the retail arrangements, and giving the BATF something for their out of work revenuers after sugar price supports destroyed the moonshine industry. They were so abusive many doubt the US gun culture would have survived without the FOPA reigning them in somewhat. Whatever the constitutionality of the Miller Amendment, it's clear the Federal Courts are going to offer no relief.
      - jmccree 13y ago
        Thank you, my dyslexia always makes me confuse the two dates. "Firearms Owners Protection Act", just like the "Patriot Act". Great naming.
  - hga 13y ago
    "Not that I want a full auto weapon :-)" They're expensive; as noted jmccree, in the US limited in numbers, perhaps 200,000 in civilian hands. But worse, the cost of ammo the chew up! Me, I wouldn't mind having a belt-fed Genera Purpose Machine Gun, but I'd have to burn up a lot of ammo at some range I don't even know of anywhere nearby to become sufficiently proficient. Well, a real FN P-90 would be cool, but not clearly useful. As for your knowledge of US weapons laws, it has never been illegal at the Federal level to own 10+ round magazines, although during Clinton's "Assault Weapons" ban new ones were restricted to the police and military. But with the world awash in surplus magazines, and the manufacturers' having months between signing and enactment to stamp out as many as they could, all it resulted in was increased prices for them, and renewed popularity for .45 ACP in new gun designs. I.e. if you're limited to 10 shots, you'd better make them count, which is my philosophy, biased by the fact that the M1911 fits my hand perfectly. But during that AW ban I owned a number of > 10 round magazines, and currently own 10s for various guns, including 10 or so AK-47 magazines for a friend who lives in a state where they're now banned. But it's only a few states that do that, although they include the large population California and New York. To put this in perspective, 42-3 of the states have (or in the case of Illinois soon will have) de jure or de facto "shall issue" concealed carry regimes. That means any citizen or resident alien (e.g. Green Card holder) in good standing can get a license to carry a concealed handgun. A handful don't even require a license, including the large population state of Arizona. Only two of these states recently imposed magazine size limits, Connecticut (which has always been weird, and the politicians are using Newtown as an excuse to turn the screws on the citizens they'd prefer to be subjects), and Colorado ... where the backlash has been fierce, including the recall of two state senators including their Senate President, and subsequent full elections could easily result in a reversal of that law. So, actually, most of us mere mortals can be as well armed as the police normally are (full auto carbines being of very limited utility). Heck, we can even own body armor as good as their's.
rambojohnson 13y ago
| it's emotionally charged and douchy way of saying you don't like the government. this is your emotionally charged and douchy way of projecting your dislike for those who dislike government. smokeyj's comment were accurate, and none of it, when read without being emotionally charged, suggests an anti-government sentiment: describing things the way they are doesn't always reveal a personal opinion.

by edias 13y ago

Jayschwa 13y ago

> Governments have different powers than citizens I disagree with this. If an individual does not have the right to do something, neither does a collective. We all individually have the right to defend ourselves, for example. As with most things in society, it's more efficient to "outsource" the task to specialists like police. However, if individuals do not have the permission bits to do something like administer non-consensual anal probes, neither should law enforcement.

mburns 13y ago
>If an individual citizen does not have the right to do something, neither does a collective An individual does not have right to punish another person in response to a crime after the fact (A.K.A. revenge). Collectively, we do.
- Jayschwa 13y ago
  I believe revenge on an individual level can be morally legit.
  - mburns 13y ago
    Well that's fine, but we're not comparing personal opinions. This tangent was brought to us by smokeyj's ramblings about the injustice of governments doing bad things with unequal punishment, and edias explaining why he's full of it. Reality is well established that government plays a different role than individuals and is explicitly given permissions we refuse to citizens by way of the Constitution. People can't own ICBMs or atomic bombs, either, which is their sovereign right if not for the oppressive government.
- kika 13y ago
  Collectively we do justice, not revenge. Justice differs in one important aspect - we give the other party the ability to prepare and defend itself.
- Intermernet 13y ago
  As someone with personal experience with this, I can say that "revenge" is the wrong reason for punishment. Punishment handed out by society should be about dissuading other members of that society from behaving against the society's best interests. Anything else is personal. As soon as "revenge" comes into it, the self-perpetuating downward spiral of justifying bad behavior as punishment for bad behavior begins. Individuals in society who gain pleasure from the punishment of others, whether that punishment was deserved or not, should realize they're really just being sadistic.
kika 13y ago
Btw, what always escaped me about US weapons laws is that police can have 10+ round mags, full auto weapons, etc, but the individual can not. As opposed to military, police fights basically the same criminals as we, mere mortals, do. The only difference is that this fight is their job. Not that I want a full auto weapon :-)
- jmccree 13y ago
  And note, that on a federal level, the only restriction are machine guns manufactured after 1968. In many states, full auto before 1968, grenade launchers, etc are fully legal for individuals to own. The ban on machine guns manufactured after 1968 is clearly unconstitutional. (See US v Miller, where a short barrel shotgun was ruled not protected under the 2nd amendment as it was NOT a military weapon)
  - hga 13y ago
    Actually manufactured after 1986, a poison pill in the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA). 1968 is when the Gun Control Act (GCA of '68) passed, pretty much completely changing the retail arrangements, and giving the BATF something for their out of work revenuers after sugar price supports destroyed the moonshine industry. They were so abusive many doubt the US gun culture would have survived without the FOPA reigning them in somewhat. Whatever the constitutionality of the Miller Amendment, it's clear the Federal Courts are going to offer no relief.
    - jmccree 13y ago
      Thank you, my dyslexia always makes me confuse the two dates. "Firearms Owners Protection Act", just like the "Patriot Act". Great naming.
- hga 13y ago
  "Not that I want a full auto weapon :-)" They're expensive; as noted jmccree, in the US limited in numbers, perhaps 200,000 in civilian hands. But worse, the cost of ammo the chew up! Me, I wouldn't mind having a belt-fed Genera Purpose Machine Gun, but I'd have to burn up a lot of ammo at some range I don't even know of anywhere nearby to become sufficiently proficient. Well, a real FN P-90 would be cool, but not clearly useful. As for your knowledge of US weapons laws, it has never been illegal at the Federal level to own 10+ round magazines, although during Clinton's "Assault Weapons" ban new ones were restricted to the police and military. But with the world awash in surplus magazines, and the manufacturers' having months between signing and enactment to stamp out as many as they could, all it resulted in was increased prices for them, and renewed popularity for .45 ACP in new gun designs. I.e. if you're limited to 10 shots, you'd better make them count, which is my philosophy, biased by the fact that the M1911 fits my hand perfectly. But during that AW ban I owned a number of > 10 round magazines, and currently own 10s for various guns, including 10 or so AK-47 magazines for a friend who lives in a state where they're now banned. But it's only a few states that do that, although they include the large population California and New York. To put this in perspective, 42-3 of the states have (or in the case of Illinois soon will have) de jure or de facto "shall issue" concealed carry regimes. That means any citizen or resident alien (e.g. Green Card holder) in good standing can get a license to carry a concealed handgun. A handful don't even require a license, including the large population state of Arizona. Only two of these states recently imposed magazine size limits, Connecticut (which has always been weird, and the politicians are using Newtown as an excuse to turn the screws on the citizens they'd prefer to be subjects), and Colorado ... where the backlash has been fierce, including the recall of two state senators including their Senate President, and subsequent full elections could easily result in a reversal of that law. So, actually, most of us mere mortals can be as well armed as the police normally are (full auto carbines being of very limited utility). Heck, we can even own body armor as good as their's.

rambojohnson 13y ago

| it's emotionally charged and douchy way of saying you don't like the government. this is your emotionally charged and douchy way of projecting your dislike for those who dislike government. smokeyj's comment were accurate, and none of it, when read without being emotionally charged, suggests an anti-government sentiment: describing things the way they are doesn't always reveal a personal opinion.