[ExI] ccp struggles

[The Avantguardian]

"We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring." - Carl Sagan 

    On Tuesday, April 14, 2020, 11:49:03 PM PDT, Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:  
 
 

On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 16:11, The Avantguardian via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:


 

   
    On Tuesday, April 14, 2020, 08:33:11 PM PDT, Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:  On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 11:18, The Avantguardian via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

 Quoting Stathis Papaioannou:
If a policeman tries to arrest you for something that you think is
unconstitutional, you don?t have the right to shoot him, or even threaten
to shoot him. You will likely be punished if you shoot him or threaten to
shoot him even if it is subsequently agreed in court (in a case separate
from your criminal trial) that the policeman was acting on laws that were
unconstitutional.
An armed American might not have the explicit right to shoot a policeman for violating his constitutional rights, but he certainly does have the option to do so. That option alone might prevent the policeman from barging into that American's home to see if he has anything he might want to take, demand free room and board from him, or otherwise excessively abuse police powers. Both the American citizen and the policeman have to deal with the consequences of their actions. By being armed, you can make sure those consequences are evident to the policeman. Armed citizenry keep the police honest.

Ever since Australians gave up their gun rights, the government can now just arrest their journalists and treat them like criminals, if they write or say the wrong thing. Can you imagine if Trump had that power here in America?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-15/abc-raids-australian-federal-police-press-freedom/11309810




Do you really think the Australian Federal Police would not have pursued the journalists if they feared they had guns? Do you think that the US Government might have not have pursued Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning if they had guns?
Those individuals would probably still have been pursued in those specific cases, but if the government started targeting a specific class of people, let's say journalists or jews. In that case guns would allow those people a chance to band together and formed a meaningful resistance.  There is ancient saying: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers if not for we the people? The capacity for violence is like a currency accepted and appreciated not just by a single country or government but by all living things both known and unknown.

The obvious example is not the journalists or the Jews but the criminals with guns: why do the police and the courts keep pursuing them?

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
In theory, because it is the duty of the criminal justice system to do so. In Mexico, however, the well-armed drug cartels and the police seldom clash and instead they usually victimize the unarmed citizens. Low hanging fruit and all.
Stuart LaForge
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200415/2c0c98aa/attachment.htm>