Rights and responsibilities

Michael wrote:
>> The right to kill someone is not a liberty, and "protecting your
property" is an excuse not a reason. The space government
needs to be as invasive as possible to ensure the survival of the
colony. If citizens were not armed then the invasion would be
minimal.

"orionaut" wrote:
> The right to "agress back" at someone who aggressed at you
first is self-defense, pure and simple. Even beasts, in practice,
have this "right."

If teh citizenry don't have to right to posess the instruments to
fight back against criminals, then they effectively don't have the
right to defend themselves. The only "rights" they have are to
listen to the government, to be at the mercy of the government, to
be at the mercy of criminals unless and until the government
stepss in to defendd them.
Michael, are you aware that in no jurisdiction at present, is there
a requirement on the police to come to your aid if you call 911?
this is true, and no exaggeration, upheld at every level of courts
today. If they can't or don't elect to come, it's a shame, and they
extend condolences to survivors and family members of the
victims, but you have no recourse if they don't help or even
contribute to your being hurt through negligence or inaction.
There is no constitutional right to be defended by the government
against marauding criminals.
Do you propose to compell the future government to come to the
aid of citizens in dire life-threatening duistress? This invasive
government must ehn have vast numbers of police, with explicit
ability to invade every space, public or private. They must have
exacting information about the layout of every space, since they
cannot waste any time finding where a distressed citizen is.
Cameras everywhere, with live-time surveilance of every aspect
of life. Chips implanted into citizens so that there's no time
wasted finding your ID when the cops knock down your door.

Please! Everyone on this list, where does this stop?!? I admit
that I'm drawing the worst possible picture here, but given the
materials at hand, how is my conclusion escapable?
Michael, do you really propose to live in this kind of world? Do
you really wish the USA to be this kind of State?
Michael, you are terribly naive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Benjamin Franklin put it briefly and politely:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Samuel Adams was more to the point:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and
leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms; May
your chains rest lightly upon you, crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our country
men."

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made
laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property
existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first
place." Frederic Bastiat

"Men by their constitution are naturally divided into two parties.
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all
powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2dly those who identify themselves with the people, have
confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most
honest and safe, although perhaps not the most wise depository
of the public interests. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to H. Lee, 1824

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who
are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such
laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent
homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man." 18th-century criminologist
Cesare Beccaria in _On Crimes and Punishment_, 1764
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Agressing FIRST, otoh, is NOBODY's right, EVER. Those
who persist in doing so to the detriment to the health, safety,
and well-being of others must be taken swiftly and, yes,
violently to task for it.
> Else, all is anarchy.

Here, here. The sheeple living at the behest of the government,
which might as well not even listen to their votes, since they have
given up the right to reform their government even if it doesn't
want to be reformed.
The sheeple living in fear of the government, since only the
government has arms; the police swaggering around, breaking
down doors at will, interrogating and searching at will, since no
one has any capacity to resist. Cops and crooks shooting it out
-since there's no way to disarm someone who resists the law
and is determined to break the law and maybe kill at will anyway.

I respect the law and the need for law. If someone breaks the
law and abuses another's rights, then they should suffer under
the law.
If the law cannot be around at the particular moment when a
citizen is in distress, I support the right of any citizen to use lethal
force if needed to protect themselves.
Note that even today, if you shoot somebody breaking into your
car, you go down for homicide. Mostly, I agree.
If you shoot a thug trying to rape somebody, it's justified. I
wholeheartedly agree.
How far do you think a citizen should bend over backwards to a
crook before they present a credible defense? Death? Letting the
crook into your home, rampage around, rape your wife, beat you
senseless, steal some stuff, and get away because the cops
didn't show up?
If you don't have the means to present a credible deterrant, how
are you to defend yourself? Harsh words? When the crooks can
have no respect for your rights?
No, martial arts isn't the answer; The biggest, most aggressive
thug is king. They didn't call the Colt .45 an "equalizer" for
nothing. Colt was the first to make a handgun that anybody could
use, so anybody could beat the biggest thug.

And don't start with the line about there being too much
accidental use, or too easy access for crooks; You can't stop
crooks from breaking the law, and there are now and have
always been more incidences of lawful uses of guns by
law-abiding citizens to stop a crime and defend someone, than
the worst numbers of wrongful or accidental death by guns.
Simple factual statistic.
Note the factual statistic about it being far safer to be around a
civilian using a gun defensively than a cop; Far fewer incidences
of wrongful shooting, bystander shooting, etc.
Read the papers. Cops spray shots around, shooting people
unnecessarily,and getting off scot-free. Citizens know that the full
weight of the government won't protect them if they do something
wrong accidentally or negligently, it'll come down on them! Cops
know that the government will protect them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the
Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be
empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people
on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly
expanding list of rights--the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health
care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's
dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of
slavery--hay and a barn for human cattle.
There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn
well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the
duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke