…I admit that maybe my vision is somewhat skewed by what I see in the Middle East…of extremely weak Police Forces, with heavily armed Militias and individuals ruling like it’s the Wild West. That just isn’t something I would like to see…
[/quote]
Well, first…have you decided there is no difference between the character of the average Middle Easterner in the areas you are thinking of and the average American?[/quote]
Absolutely not…
There are HUGE differences in overall mindset and culture.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Exactly. That’s one of the reasons why even though the US is THE most heavily armed society in all of history we do not observe, “heavily armed Militias and individuals ruling like it’s the Wild West.”
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams[/quote]
Thanks, Push…
I like Adams quote.
(This also seems to support the idea that trying to “force” our type of Democracy on much of the Middle East is futile? Did I read Adams correctly?)
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No, I’m just saying that the citizens don’t hold the monopoly of force and if they were to hold the monopoly of force then the state would be in peril. [/quote]
Why? I don’t follow how having a monopoly of force automatically = peril. If the U.S. hold’s the monopoly of force are we the people in peril? What is stopping the U.S. government from doing whatever it wants? Why even hold voting at all if the state has a monopoly of force?
[quote]
Look at Rome. Who held the monopoly of force during the late Republic? The legions. The legions were the state. That’s how Sulla, Pompey, Caesar etc gained power. They didn’t actually need to use force. The mere fact that they commanded the legions and the legions were loyal to them transferred the state from the Senate to them.[/quote]
Okay, that may have been the case in the Roman Empire. I would say the United States in quite a bit different.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Cops do not need tanks. Cops should not have tanks.
[/quote]
Cops don’t have tanks. For something to be considered a tank, it requires a mounted cannon. The vehicles you see are simply armored personnel carriers. What problem do you have with police transporting their members and citizens in a bullet resistant vehicle? Do you have a problem with members of the public owning tanks? Arnie has a tank. Do you believe he needs it more or less than a police department?[/quote]
I am aware of the distinctions between APC’s and tanks, between light and heavy tanks, between gas turbine and diesel propulsion, between smooth bore and rifled cannon, between tracked and wheeled APC’s, between a Panther and a Tiger, the list goes on.
I know stuff about tanks. More than I need to.
I used the term generically. I do not see the need for an APC to be owned and maintained by the Lewiston, Maine police department. If nothing else, it is an expensive piece of equipment to maintain and run.
Hey Push, here’s a recent one from Canada for you:
Armoured vehicle may have saved lives: police
Shots were fired at police when officers arrived on the scene, and the police service’s armoured vehicle was brought in to help rescue family members hiding behind the parked car and to keep officers safe.
“Those people could have been injured or killed,” police spokesperson Alyson Edwards said Monday. “Passersby could have been injured or killed, our officers were fired at, our vehicles were damaged.”
The armoured vehicle was damaged by bullets and police say the incident emphasizes the value of officer preparedness.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well, first…have you decided there is no difference between the character of the average Middle Easterner in the areas you are thinking of and the average American?[/quote]
Define average American.[/quote]
An Obama voter, as he got a little over 50% of the vote.[/quote]
That would be an average voter.
But again before the rabbit trail lengthens let me remind the folks here that we were comparing armed Americans with armed Middle Easterners.
In these discussions be the smart, disciplined dog that hunts the intended prey, not the loony, untrained dog that chases all the rabbits it gets its nose on.
Savvy?[/quote]
Well you were first to bring up “Average American” when the average American is not armed, own a gun or even live in a house with a gun.
Because the natural condition of man is war. In the state of nature it’s every man against every other man. When men come together to form a state, they are forming a unity against other men. Even when a stable state is created via a social contract the individual factions are at war with each other - Democrats versus Republicans etc. The only thing preventing actual violence breaking out is the separation of powers. Or in most countries a tyrant. Warfare is the natural condition of man and the state.
Absolutely. That’s the conundrum. As I said, warfare is the natural condition of man and therefore the state. There is no “answer” to the problem. The problem is human nature.
Bicameral legislature and separation of powers mostly.
Parliamentary democracy seeks to, and to an extent is successfully at curtailing tyrants and limiting internal conflict to non-violent means.
I think man’s “natural” tendency (proven throughout history) is to exert Unrighteous Dominion and Power over others…and they will exert it even more, the more “power” they have (whether it be the stronger metal in their swords…crossbows…automatic weapons…or Bombers. Yes…we in the U.S. have a huge Thermonuclear Stock Pile that we have not used to overpower others…but that’s another thread and discussion).
I don’t mind an armed citizenry at all…but I have a problem with that citizenry walking around carrying more Firepower than our Police Forces and our Military.
Why?
“Average Joe” and his like-minded Militia don’t have (IMO) the same “checks and balances” (regardless as to how imperfect those checks and balances may be) as the Local Police department or even the 82nd Airborne across town from me.
I just feel uneasy that “Joe” would only use his Firepower to protect “Flag, Home and Hearth”.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
Here’s a video of an upstanding citizen(previous military service and all) just out for a drive with a tank:
And for the DIY tank builder:
Seems to me that citizens have harmed more property and people with tanks on American soil than the government has. [/quote]
Thou knoweth not what the fuck thou speakest of:
The title of the video states the tank set the fire, and it’s on the internet, so it MUST be true! You’ve been taken in by video titles frequently as of late.
It couldn’t have been the lunatic inside who is responsible for this, no?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t believe a state is defined solely by a “monopoly of force”. [/quote]
The monopoly of force Sexmachine is referring to alludes to Max Weber’s definition of a state, which is a “human community [government] which has successfully claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” Key to the above is the concept of legitimacy.
Because the natural condition of man is war. In the state of nature it’s every man against every other man. When men come together to form a state, they are forming a unity against other men. Even when a stable state is created via a social contract the individual factions are at war with each other - Democrats versus Republicans etc. The only thing preventing actual violence breaking out is the separation of powers. Or in most countries a tyrant. Warfare is the natural condition of man and the state.
Absolutely. That’s the conundrum. As I said, warfare is the natural condition of man and therefore the state. There is no “answer” to the problem. The problem is human nature.
Bicameral legislature and separation of powers mostly.
Parliamentary democracy seeks to, and to an extent is successfully at curtailing tyrants and limiting internal conflict to non-violent means.[/quote]
War is a natural state of man. It is not the natural state of man. There’s a big difference between the two. I don’t consider R’s vs. D’s war. Frankly I think it’s a bit preposterous. Having differing opinions or stance’s isn’t “war”.
I still don’t get why the people can’t hold a monopoly of force and voluntarily via social contract allow the government to marshal law and order. You are saying the government has a monopoly of power, but the separation of powers keeps tyranny in check. Why can’t the populace have a monopoly of force and use a/the government as their check?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t mind an armed citizenry at all…but I have a problem with that citizenry walking around carrying more Firepower than our Police Forces and our Military.
Why?
“Average Joe” and his like-minded Militia don’t have (IMO) the same “checks and balances” (regardless as to how imperfect those checks and balances may be) as the Local Police department or even the 82nd Airborne across town from me.
[/quote]
They might not have the same checks, but they have about 300 million checks non-the-less if the entirety of the U.S. is armed.
