> > The very definition of the state in modern times is its monopoly
>> on the use of force. A state which cannot achieve such a monopoly
>> is pretty much a failed state.
>
>In Switzerland, an armed populace is the standing army. There are
>other exceptions to your proposed maxim.
That isn't an exception.
> > Perhaps you believe that individuals should have the right to
>> possess nuclear weapons as well?
>
>Historically, such things were decided by the ability to afford, that is
>the hardline position.
That's a feudal position. Hence a quite backward position.
>A more contemporary position is to distinguish
>between individual weapons and crew-served weapons. Ultimately, you're
>asking the nuclear question in all senses of the word, there are ludicrous
>extremes at the other end of the spectrum as well. Are you familiar with
>the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and how they have historically treated
>the right to self-defense?
No, I'm not familiar with the history of Massachusetts. I like the Bee Gees song, but that's about all I know of the place, wouldn't even be able to find it on a map.
> > But of course such a right (even for those who have the means
>> to exercise the theoretical right) is very much a last resort.
>> Legally, the private citizen only has the right to use violence
>> to resist violence if there is not other way to avoid harm.
>
>Many outside of the USA do not have that right. Some inside of the USA
>do not have that right either, people have been prosecuted for exercising
>that right instead of retreating even where "retreating" meant some elderly
>person crawling out of a window of their own home.
I see you are confusing the right to take revenge, or at least the right to take the offensive against someone you believe has infringed your property rights, with the right to self defense.
It is obvious (to me) that there is a difference. What I am not sure of is whether you genuinely can't see the difference, or are deliberately refusing to acknowledge the difference?
> > The more valuable right is the right to be safe from violent attack.
>
>That is a classically liberal expectation. Put it on the chalkboard, right
>next to the right to not get hit by lightning and the right to always be a
>winner, never be a loser. You said something about myths and fantasies in
>your response to Shane Mage?
I'm afraid I'm a bit lost in your rhetoric here. Are you implying that I'm a classic liberal? That would be hilarious.
>Reducing preventable death is the stated goal of those who would impose
>background checks, waiting periods, magazine capacity limits, and more.
>That goal doesn't pass the smell test when its advocates are quizzed on
>preventable medical errors and applying some of their proposed solutions
>for firearms to drinking and driving. Oh, there is some handwave about
>weighing the risks and what constitutes the acceptable versus the
>unacceptable that all sounds good and looks on paper, the problem with it
>is that it draws on the same emotionally driven, magical thinking that
>leads some to think that Utopia is achievable. Meanwhile in the real world,
>the ruling class isn't threatened by drunk drivers and bad health care
>providers the same way it feels threatened by an armed & discontented
>underclass, so that's why it co-opts some movements and implants poisoned
>memes in others.
The ruling class isn't in the least threatened by gun ownership. It is the so called "middle class" and particularly the urban "middle class" who feel threatened by the notion of "rednecks" with guns.
The capitalist ruling class don't rule that way, it isn't a violent force kind of class conflict we are dealing with. The capitalist ruling class rule economically, not politically (via the state) and still less militarily. So your guns are of no avail, they won't get you a job if the ruling class decides not to employ you, they won't get you a raise in ay or better working conditions, they won't get you a better house or a less polluted city to live in.
The ruling class is threatened by class conscious organisation. My .22 rifle doesn't bother them in the least.
>I'm taking this opportunity to withdraw the original question (Is there a
>left argument for gun rights) that I might propose a new one: If the left
>is unwilling to openly take up a pro-gun-rights position and repair the
>damage done to it by liberals who support the ruling class's desires to
>disarm the unwashed masses, why should it expect any of the rest of its
>platform to resonate with a population where two thirds support the second
>amendment and only a minority support increased gun control? Yes, support
>for gun control has fallen and is no longer supported by a narrow majority,
>the gun controllers are in the minority now.
Well my friend, your second amendment is of no relevance to me, but I would approach that question from the direction of the fact that an even smaller percentage of Americans appear to be in favour of socialist revolution, than are in favour of gun control. I suspect that this is not entirely unrelated. Many Americans, rather like you, seem to confuse the right (a right only limited by a person's financial means) to own military weapons with some useful liberty.
Likewise, it may also be the case that many Americans are, like yourself, unable to distinguish between the right to self defense and the right to violently avenge themselves against anyone suspected of infringing their property rights. And I'm not just referring to a few bikies, mafia soldiers and deranged adventurist revolutionaries, but entire swathes of the non-criminal class.
I wouldn't know the truth or otherwise of that claim. If, as you claim, most Americans are thus inclined, then they are not mentally equipped to own a firearm (let alone create a socialist commonwealth). It may be best if they were taken off them for their own good. At least us rednecks know what guns are for - poaching game and maybe duffing some stock here and there when times are hard. We are thus not the ones the law abiding middle class should be worried about.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas