Do you know what my proposed solutions are? I haven't mentioned them in this thread at all and don't think I have gone into them in detail anywhere on jazzfanz. In no way is my idea of a solution to simply take away people's gun rights. As I have mentioned I think there needs to be "rules of engagement" which would essentially set out protocols that would define more clearly what an armed person's responsibilities are when armed. One that exists currently is that a person with a concealed firearm is prohibited from going to a bar and getting drunk while carrying. So I'm essentially talking about that kind of thing. Do you think that prohibitions against getting drunk at a bar while carrying a gun is a violation of rights and an "arbitrary nullification?"
The biggest part of the problem, as I see it, is that people arm themselves and then boldly enter into situations that they would not be so eager involve themselves in if not armed. I think a standard needs to be defined where the question is asked if a reasonable person who was unarmed would have acted in the same way. Specifically if a reasonable unarmed person would have instigated the same confrontation, or interacted with someone else in as aggressive a manner, etc.. Basically, the idea is that having a gun on you should not encourage you to seek confrontation. Stand your ground is perfectly fine as long as it isn't seen a a license to seize ground in hostile territory and then defend it with lethal force.
Well, OK.
Here's what happens when we try to postulate anything based on "what a reasonable man would do", and make that a standard for a rule of law.
Reasonable men differ when they prioritize various reasons or public standards for thought. The right to peaceably assemble, to petition government for redress of grievances, freedom of speech and freedom of belief are always attacked from some elevated notion of what is reasonable, and it is always used to suppress liberty.
Human beings are inherently unreasonable, inconsistent, or arbitrary. Whenever happiness or privilege is regulated, it is an attack on liberty.
Some things are worth regulating. What you think is worth regulating could look like a problem to others. Most of us agree that freeways are worth regulating with speed limits and traffic rules.
The problem with bringing up another idea about regulating gun use right now is political. I think people are largely..... regardless of media campaigns..... rejecting the self-defined "progressive" governance model because it is too adverse to individual opportunity and prosperity.
If leftist agenda factions are going to do riots, we should judge them like you want to judge people who wish to bring guns to the damn riots. Some don't like police failures to enforce laws and protect life and property.
Bricks, frozen water bottles, molotov cocktails and butane torches or whatever should all be subject to the same standard. Would a reasonable man want to burn down the police station. Would a reasonable man throw a brick at a window. Would a reasonable man kick a kid down on the street in the head. All that.
If you're OK with riots, you have no freakin business talking about what reasonable people should do with a firearm.
The Marxist sort of revolution in whatever current form still has the theory that what we are, what we have, is an obstruction to progress. Marxists define what is the present as all wrong, and justify breaking it down as a necessity for bringing in something better. Marxist theology does not recognize human rights when they are exercised in opposition to the revolution.
The problem with all that is there is ultimately no fixed or final end to the revolution. It is an endless sort of destruction that will never fail to find new evils to overthrow.
Marxism is in the most basic definition a political tool. In the olden days, people were supposed to prove their belief in it, but not now. Marxists just focus on willingness to use the tool. Billionaires use it today as a means to solidify basically fascist power and world governance. Whatever idealistic true believers like my friend was really believed just doesn't matter anymore. He called communist regimes like China, Russia, and Cuba "State Capitalism" He would call the UN "Global Capitalism". Whatever.
The better world modern marxists want, and are willing to riot for, is not a genuine ideological commitment. It is an orchestrated fake commitment generally embraced by mercenaries for a basically fascist world regime which will deepen, extend, and increase power in the hands of a few.
The problem there is that the few will still have to fight the "King of the Hill" sort of battle for ultimate power.
I just don't think that's a path we need to roll over for.
The idea of limited government inherently curbs such extreme sociopathic obsessions.
Whatever our problems with climate or overpopulation or social malaise of any kind, that is not a solution we want.
I theorize that "Reasonable Men will not accept such bad government".
www.nbcnews.com
