Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does LEO response policy invalidate the left's proposed social contract?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does LEO response policy invalidate the left's proposed social contract?

    The left has occasionally made the argument that we don't need guns in society because we have police and the police handle the job of protecting us. Some say that our guns add to the problem and that cops should be the primary wielders of deadly force. When confronted with crime, we should call the police and let them handle it. They will sometimes call it vigilantism when a gun owner shoots a home invader and disapprove of laws like stand your ground.

    But LEOs like AJ have pointed out that in this day and age it is not a part of police culture to put themselves between you and danger. The police are no longer guardians who will storm into danger risking life and limb for the citizenry. They will only advance when sure of victory and minimal to no casualties on their part. I don't want to debate whether that's right or wrong here, but it does raise a question. The left has always proposed the social contract that the private citizen surrender personal power in exchange for government protection - federal or local. It's the root of many of their social ideals. Surrender your power, let the state protect you in both fiscal and martial matters.

    But it seems here that the government isn't providing the protection. Right or wrong, for better or worse, we do not have officials who act as civic paladins, but rather custodians of order. We cannot expect them to dive in to save us when danger is imminent. And if that is the case, does this not derail the social contract of surrendering personal power for community protection? Should we not, as a matter of pragmatism, revert to the more frontier standard of providing for personal defense and security? Because surrendering personal power for the protection by an elite only works when they actively get between you and whatever menace is advancing upon you. Without that armed elite, you're surrendering power and becoming a sitting duck. Even feudalism offered a measure of protection in exchange for subservience.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

  • #2
    Doesn't it invalidate everything? When you can no longer trust the government to protect you shouldn't you just embrace anarchy? Or should you perhaps clean out the police departments(whatever the cost)? Should you finally rise against the military-industrial complex? Or are you just asking wrong questions and making the wrong conclusions?

    I wonder what percentage of american police force is ex-military. I bet that contributes a lot to your problems.
    Wisdom is personal

    Comment


    • #3
      Even if every cop was sworn to give up their life to protect yours, they are still minutes away when you need protection right now.

      The gun grabbers fantasy has never been a social contract.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
        Even if every cop was sworn to give up their life to protect yours, they are still minutes away when you need protection right now.

        The gun grabbers fantasy has never been a social contract.
        And how close are you to a situation where you need protection right now? Isn't that just fantasy in your part? If most cops go through their career without ever firing the gun, except for training, how likely are you to fire your gun in protection?
        Wisdom is personal

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Karri View Post
          And how close are you to a situation where you need protection right now? Isn't that just fantasy in your part? If most cops go through their career without ever firing the gun, except for training, how likely are you to fire your gun in protection?
          How would I know how close I am? I live in a statistically safe place, like everyone else in America. However, I am endowed with inalienable rights, chief among them the right to defend myself. That means not only against some thug, but also my government.

          The fact that you can't understand why someone would chose to be responsible for their own safety and well being instead of fobbing the off on to the government makes it pointless for you to ask for understanding. Most Europeans will never get it. Hell, the gun grabbers in the US can't understand it either.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
            How would I know how close I am? I live in a statistically safe place, like everyone else in America. However, I am endowed with inalienable rights, chief among them the right to defend myself. That means not only against some thug, but also my government.

            The fact that you can't understand why someone would chose to be responsible for their own safety and well being instead of fobbing the off on to the government makes it pointless for you to ask for understanding. Most Europeans will never get it. Hell, the gun grabbers in the US can't understand it either.
            Please, like other religious nutters; keep your beliefs to yourself. I simply asked why you think someone is constantly peeping in your windows or coming through your doors to cause harm on you, when that is not the case. Did you forget what you posted or did you expect me to read your mind or something?
            Wisdom is personal

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
              The left has occasionally made the argument that we don't need guns in society because we have police and the police handle the job of protecting us. Some say that our guns add to the problem and that cops should be the primary wielders of deadly force. When confronted with crime, we should call the police and let them handle it. They will sometimes call it vigilantism when a gun owner shoots a home invader and disapprove of laws like stand your ground.

              But LEOs like AJ have pointed out that in this day and age it is not a part of police culture to put themselves between you and danger. The police are no longer guardians who will storm into danger risking life and limb for the citizenry. They will only advance when sure of victory and minimal to no casualties on their part. I don't want to debate whether that's right or wrong here, but it does raise a question. The left has always proposed the social contract that the private citizen surrender personal power in exchange for government protection - federal or local. It's the root of many of their social ideals. Surrender your power, let the state protect you in both fiscal and martial matters.

              But it seems here that the government isn't providing the protection. Right or wrong, for better or worse, we do not have officials who act as civic paladins, but rather custodians of order. We cannot expect them to dive in to save us when danger is imminent. And if that is the case, does this not derail the social contract of surrendering personal power for community protection? Should we not, as a matter of pragmatism, revert to the more frontier standard of providing for personal defense and security? Because surrendering personal power for the protection by an elite only works when they actively get between you and whatever menace is advancing upon you. Without that armed elite, you're surrendering power and becoming a sitting duck. Even feudalism offered a measure of protection in exchange for subservience.
              Leo's stopped having much say a long time ago. In fact, most, if not all, of them have removed words like "Protect and Serve" from their mottos and now make no pretense of being anything other than an after-the-fact cleanup squad.

              To address your question directly, there is no "social contract" implying any sort of law enforcement or protection whatsoever any more. In fact, the police will be the first to recite a lengthy list of reasons why they cannot enforce whatever laws the citizens are concerned about.

              I fully believe that the booming gun ownership is the direct result of the absolute failure of the American system of law and order.

              Ironically, we live in age of overwhelming surveillance, which accomplishes nothing except to assist leo's in looking for the perps after the crime is committed.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Karri View Post
                Please, like other religious nutters; keep your beliefs to yourself. I simply asked why you think someone is constantly peeping in your windows or coming through your doors to cause harm on you, when that is not the case. Did you forget what you posted or did you expect me to read your mind or something?
                By using your argument one could argue that there is no reason to use seat belts since it is unlikely that accident happens.
                "Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery"
                Robert G. Ingersoll 1833-1899

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
                  Even if every cop was sworn to give up their life to protect yours, they are still minutes away when you need protection right now.

                  The gun grabbers fantasy has never been a social contract.

                  No cop is sworn to give up their life for yours...but your right having to actually depend on an expedited police arrival is ludicrous...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JML View Post
                    By using your argument one could argue that there is no reason to use seat belts since it is unlikely that accident happens.
                    Or plenty of other things if you take things out of context.
                    Wisdom is personal

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The police work for the government. They are there to serve and protect the government and the public at large, not individuals. You are on your own for the most part because of that. Expecting the police to protect you in virtually any situation is absurd.

                      As the wag goes: When every second counts, the police are only minutes away...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Karri View Post
                        And how close are you to a situation where you need protection right now? Isn't that just fantasy in your part? If most cops go through their career without ever firing the gun, except for training, how likely are you to fire your gun in protection?
                        You are always living in the potential of needing immediate aid. This is the principle of precaution. What don't grasp is that if you wait until you need aid to plan on how to aid yourself, it's already too late.

                        In my house I have two fire extinguishers, one by my bed and one in the kitchen. The odds of my house catching on fire are miniscule but if I wait for a fire to buy an extinguisher as per your logic that is kind of foolish. As it so happens I had an ignition occur in my kitchen and had I not had the extinguisher I would have had to call the fire department and endure an expensive level of property and smoke damage while awaiting their arrival had I not had the ability to snuff the flash right there before it could even spread.

                        The same principle applies to guns. I own one. I strongly suspect I will never use it on anything besides a paper target nor do I wish to. I hope I never have to even be in that situation and far from fantasizing myself as Rambo I am reasonably sure that upon use against a hostile target, the clip won't be the only thing I have emptied. But in the unlikely but existing possibility the needs arise, it is there for me. And like the extinguisher, I can deploy it in a pinch when swift response is the better action.

                        Heck by the logic you are proposing I shouldn't even have insurance. But my insurance, my extinguishers, and my firearm all sit ready even though they sit equally with the hope that I never ever have to use them. I am a boring desk jockey and my ultimate dream is to remain a boring desk jockey.
                        A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          The police work for the government. They are there to serve and protect the government and the public at large, not individuals. You are on your own for the most part because of that. Expecting the police to protect you in virtually any situation is absurd.

                          As the wag goes: When every second counts, the police are only minutes away...
                          Odd pov in a country that prides it's self on a government for the people by the people

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                            You are always living in the potential of needing immediate aid. This is the principle of precaution. What don't grasp is that if you wait until you need aid to plan on how to aid yourself, it's already too late.

                            In my house I have two fire extinguishers, one by my bed and one in the kitchen. The odds of my house catching on fire are miniscule but if I wait for a fire to buy an extinguisher as per your logic that is kind of foolish. As it so happens I had an ignition occur in my kitchen and had I not had the extinguisher I would have had to call the fire department and endure an expensive level of property and smoke damage while awaiting their arrival had I not had the ability to snuff the flash right there before it could even spread.

                            The same principle applies to guns. I own one. I strongly suspect I will never use it on anything besides a paper target nor do I wish to. I hope I never have to even be in that situation and far from fantasizing myself as Rambo I am reasonably sure that upon use against a hostile target, the clip won't be the only thing I have emptied. But in the unlikely but existing possibility the needs arise, it is there for me. And like the extinguisher, I can deploy it in a pinch when swift response is the better action.

                            Heck by the logic you are proposing I shouldn't even have insurance. But my insurance, my extinguishers, and my firearm all sit ready even though they sit equally with the hope that I never ever have to use them. I am a boring desk jockey and my ultimate dream is to remain a boring desk jockey.
                            I guess you have a EMT in the driveway as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Karri - you have police and fire departments n your own country. Why? Are you planning on burning the place down? Do you intend to riot or kill someone? Or are they there "in case" for those times when things do go wrong?

                              Your "logic" is no logic at all.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X