* Posts by Bazza O

3 posts • joined 5 Oct 2014

OMG! With nothing but machine tools, steel and parts you can make a GUN!!

Bazza O

Re: @ A J Stiles

"Basic rule of firearms safety - identify your target."

Its also required by law. There is a lot of misunderstanding of US self-defense law. Its not as lax as most people think.

In order to claim self-defense, you have to demonstrate:

1) Innocence (you are not committing a crime and you are not the aggressor)

2) Imminence (you or family about to be attacked NOW)

3) Proportionality (the response is justified by the threat)

3) Avoidance (a few states require the self defender to retreat - most do not)

4) Reasonableness (are the self-defender's judgements reasonable)

The state must only prove one of these 4 to be false to defeat a self-defence claim.

Shooting an unidentified intruder through a door fails (2) and (3)....

(Pistorius would likely be convicted in the US. )

Bazza O

A well regulated Militia ...

A lot of obfuscation is attempted by emphasising the first part of the amendment over the second.

However, there has been plenty of legal analysis: the first part is preamble - the second part is the actual declaration. The first part is explaining the motivation, not limiting its application. The language is clear.

For better or worse, this is the essence of the 2nd amendment:

<b>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed</b>

Bazza O

Regarding defending against the gubmint....

I think it is incorrect to pooh-pooh as fantasy that the 2nd amendment is the guarantor against government tyranny. It's also incorrect to assume that just because the military outgun a private citizen, that it's pointless.

1. It sets the tone of the relationship between the people and its government. The government does not have a monopoly on violence. It therefore must govern with consent of the governed. As the joke goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb disputing the outcome." Fundamentally, An armed population is considerably more difficult to subdue/control than unarmed one.

2. The fact that citizens are likely to be outgunned by the gubmint, isn't quite the point. The real point is that an armed population is generally a preventive measure. If a very unpopular law were to pass that would result in widespread noncompliance, and enforcing it would result in armed resistance, then the state would have to weigh the cost of the law in terms of lives lost. Citizens' lives and the lives of its enforcement officers. It's highly unlikely that the government would even pass such a law if the result was going to be a rather large body count. It would be even less likely that the enforcement officers would perform their duty without significant rebellion.

3. Finally, history is replete with examples of unarmed people being brutalised / murdered en-masse by their government, so it's silly to say it can't happen. Whether an armed population could prevent it is up for grabs, but certainly an unarmed population's options are limited.

Aside from that, it was a very refreshing article to read - free of the usual bullsh!t...


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020