"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[Chaerophon]

Without the right to bear arms, all other guaranteed rights are just words on paper. The age of firearms is what brought these powers to the people in the first place...

This is perhaps the biggest crock that I have ever read Nystul. Sorry, but guns don't equal rights. Consensus, shared existence/history, mythologized "horizons of significanance" - these are the things that preserve societal rights. (Funnily enough, most articulations hold that it is STATE military power that preserves order and rights) Carrying your gun around in your purse only protects your right to carry a gun in your purse.

First of all, you're not going to take on a hypothetically totalitarian US military with civilian weaponry; however, the SHARED VALUES and idealisms of those who belong to the military may, in fact, preserve citizen's rights as they refuse to act on the totalitarian impulses of those in power. The shared understanding of what rights are and the valuation of what has gone before is what preserves rights - NOT the ability to carry a gun wherever you go.

To take another example: there is an ongoing struggle at the international level to preserve women's rights. UN conferences have convened in which various NGO's, governments, and other civil society groups have engaged in lengthy and meaningful dialogue, arriving at consensus as to a number of resolutions in defence of women and their rights. For the feminist movement in general, the key to obtaining equal rights has not been "getting guns" - it has been cultural pressures and internal manipulation of the public consensus that has slowly led to their empowerment. Progress may be slow in many countries, but it does exist, as more and more women at the local level are laying claim to, and receiving, their basic human rights as women.

I don't see that they [rights] can be maintained without them.

Funny... seems to me that there are a lot of countries doing fine without laissez-faire gun laws. What's more, I really don't see the posited link that you are making here. How do you figure that soft gun laws are the root of your society's order? Many societies are more peaceful with stricter laws... Is the structure on which your 'rights' are based really so tenuous? In daily life, does having a gun make you more free to speak your mind or sit where you'd like on the bus? In my opinion, it's all hogwash. The right to bear arms is a right enumerated under the American constitution. Fine. That being said, I'm not sure that they are the fundamental key to American rights, nor am I willing to concede that without them, anarchy would rule the day.

[Chaerophon]

They believe that the people en masse are sovereign over the State, as in "Of the People, by the People, for the People".

Who were the people again? Oh, that's right, white property owners. So, what other purpose might gun possession and private militias served??? Hmmmm... Probably property protection, eh? Let's not forget, in the Lockean passage from which your "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is borrowed, happiness is replaced by property. It's all fine and dandy to mythologize your history; but in an argument like this, it's downright misleading.

In addition, I think that you are making too great of a distinction between "people" and "state". The people do empower and legitimate the state. The state is a function of the people. However, the state is granted sovereignty over the people through the electoral process. This is the nature of representative democracy, and, every four years, elections are held so as to give the people another chance to choose. Governance is impossible in your ultra-populist articulation.

As a final note, it goes without saying that, moreso than guns, the bicameral legislature, the separation of executive and legislative, and the federal system were set up to protect against state tyranny. I would argue that the second amendment was an exercise in property protection. Even if you do not agree with me, you must realize that the American system of governance was constructed so as to maximally prevent tyranny. Sovereignty and authority were divided between senate and house, the state and federal level, executive and legislative. It wasn't all as simple as "hey, you're exploiting me, vive la revolution!" The idea was to set up governments so as to prevent tyranny from ever occurring. While as a last resort, the threat of violence may have been a deterrent to tyrannical government, I think that the greater fear was a loss of power come the next election.

[kandrathe]

This is perhaps the biggest crock that I have ever read Kandrathe. Sorry, but guns don't equal rights. That's a bunch of BS propaganda if I've ever heard it. Consensus, shared existence/history, mythologized "horizons of significanance" - these are the things that preserve societal rights. Carrying your gun around in your purse only protects your right to carry a gun in your purse.

:) That view is too extreme for me. So, I can't take credit for it.

But, to toss in my two bits while I'm here. I come at the issue from the other direction. What right does a government have to limit my freedoms? I am one who always looks at every tax or imposition by the state with a critical eye. Not that I don't concede that some taxes or laws that are a limitation on freedoms are neccesary for order or societal good. For the 99%(or more) of the US population that are law abiding there is no reason for the state to make a case to protect me from myself, or my neighbors. If our nation makes a priority of liberty and law, then the laws and the government persons hired to enforce those laws should prevent the 1% from doing harms. If the State must control the 1% by severly curtailing the rights of the majority, then what would prevent the state from taking other steps such as imposing a dusk to dawn curfew whereby it would be illegal to leave your home after dark. It would certainly reduce crime, except of course curfew violations. Ultimately, the right to protect oneself and ones property by reasonable means is a fundamental right. To remove that right, would be to subject the individual to the whims of the state, or local authorities. Or, in effect placing the citizen in a position of fealty to the government. So my question is, "Do I have the right to defend myself and my property or must I rely on the State for that?"

[Chaerophon]

That view is too extreme for me. So, I can't take credit for it.

Fair enough, I'm a dumbass. I've alread edited that. Apologies.

As for the rest: we're clearly coming from different perspectives :) You know that I disagree with you, and I know that you disagree with me, so perhaps that's the best way to leave it.