An excellent start so far, keep it up. Maybe a bit ironic that you chose to have a cigarette while filming the video, though, yet gave the distinct
impression of "clearing the smoke" at the same time. Dare I say, a breath of fresh air even (the EPA report on 2nd hand smoke report conspiracies
There is something that occurs to me to ask you in light of your response to lockman's question about armed citizens and the 2nd amendment. As a Law
Enforcement Officer, is it safe to assume that either your basic training or a profession inspired interest gives you a more insightful understanding
of social contract theories than most laypeople (including myself). In Hobbes "Leviathan", he describes anarchy as a war of all - against all,
because we are endowed by nature with the right of everyone to everything - including the right to harm your fellow man.
When, at the end of your video, you said (in regards to the right to protest) roughly "Your rights end, where my rights begin". (Sorry if I
misquoted). This reminded me of the line from his second law of nature:
"That a man be willing, when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay
down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfe."
Or as the Golden Rule states: "Treat thy neighbor as you would want your neighbor to treat you."
A nice sentiment, but ineffective in the face of violent exercise of another's right to everything. To ensure promote peace, each individual agrees
to give up their right to exercise use of force over the other in punishment for violating the social contract (vigilante justice) - and both invest
that power into a third party mediator who has the authority and means to punish both. This is what forms the core foundation of our government and
law enforcement agencies.
Whereas Hobbes argued for unchallengeable strong and centralized government - Locke and others (such as he founding fathers) devised mechanisms to
balance power between the people, the government, and the contract. One of such measures being the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
Now to my question. At what point do think the right to bear arms should be limited? At the time of the Revolution, guns such as the Kentucky Long
Rifle were inexpensive and plentiful. It put the the Militias on solid ground vs. the Continental Army. Yet that isn't the case anymore. It creates a
bit of a paradox. Clearly private citizens and militias cannot be entrusted with weapons that put them on equal ground with military forces. Not to
suggest that a rise in gun violence would follow, but certainly the scale of it would increase. For example, the tragic N. Hollywood Shootout a few
years back. The police must be at least comparably (or slightly better) armed than citizens in order to be effective agents for enforcing the contract
between those individual citizens and their government. Yet the military weapon superiority then trounces both police and citizen combined.
Wherein then, would the second amendment still functionally protect us against anything in the manner in which the amendment was intended? Would it be
merely relegated to a rather situational (preventative/defensive) measure between individuals in temporary lieu of law enforcement? And wouldn't
that, in itself, represent a fundamental breakdown of the concept of the enforcement in the social contract by an outside mediator?
Now, just to be clear, I don't mean to argue against the merit of the 2nd amendment - and I don't want to give up my guns either. After all, I use
them on a regular basis as a deterrent, .35 cent pest control, and for recreation. Thankfully I haven't been in a situation where I've needed to
fire it for survival.
I am just curious as to where a man in your profession stands on what constitutes a justifiable guaranteed level of defensive capability vs. the cost
of potential abuse in offensive capabilities. Would you want to see private citizens and organized citizen militias shifted more towards capability to
challenge the military should the need arise, or is that sort of balance untenable in today's world?
... Or, if the answer to that ends up eating too much time away from other questions you want to get to, how about this. Assuming Ray Kurzweil is
right, and the singularity hits. Will you remain the mortal but quintessential human Alex Murphy, or will you go full-on RoboCop awesome kicking ass
with size 13 titanium-alloy boots?
I liked the response you gave in regard to my first reply. That's pretty much the same reason I come here. Though I don't consider myself a
Conspiracy Theorist by any means, nor have the arguments I've come across in my time here suggested that my position is likely to change anytime soon
- I would not be doing myself any favors by leaving my opinions unchallenged.
As Thomas Paine put it,
Please remember that I have always supported the Right of every person to have their own opinion, even if that opinion is different than mine.
Anyone who denies another person of this right, makes himself a slave to his own opinion, because he prevents himself from being able to change
I don't feel obligated to respect another's opinion if I find it poorly reasoned, nor to molly-coddle baseless speculation or accusations, nor
engage in sifting mountains of misconception in the hopes of panning for a possible gold nugget of truth. To the best of my ability I will attempt to
rip poorly justified or rationalized opinions to shreds... especially those which claim to profess absolute or fundamental "Truths". I may not be
nice about it. But that's not denying someone their opinion. That's challenging their opinion. And I hope that others extend the same courtesy to my