jackskell
From this framework, people (men, largely) were expected to provide for themselves and their families. Food, shelter, “retirement” (or putting provisions in place for old age), and yes, personal security from threats, both from other individuals and from any future possible oppressive government, as well as being responsible for being personally armed to repel foreign invaders.
In modern times, being armed either in or outside the home (or place of business) gives us a few things. It continues the principle of being responsible for one’s own personal security, rather than relying on societal pressures for bad behavior (!) or dependence on the timely and enthusiastic response of local law enforcement.
I think we would agree that part of the responsibility for firearms ownership is safe storage, mental and legal preparation for an event, and continuous training. With rights come responsibilities. Not everyone will choose to own a firearm, and that’s ok, each person should be allowed to make their own decisions.
Law enforcement efforts are reactionary, not proactive, the negative effects of which are exacerbated by out failed criminal justice system, the full fruits of which have been on display since the 80s, depending on who you believe.
Simple possession of a firearm does not make every (legal) defensive use a quick draw contest or result in a hail of bullets. There is a deterrence affect in locales where lawful weapons carry is legal. FBI statistics, depending on year, will tell us that “civilian” display of a weapon will stop a threat upwards of 93% of the time, without any shots fired. When the “civilian” fires a weapon in self defense, the average number of shots remains less than 3 (although trending upwards..) Law enforcement fires far more rounds per encounter, with the resultant display of (excessive?) force and possibility of downrange consequences.
There are people who would rather draw their weapon to defend themselves and / or their family than depend on the rationality of a person threatening them, who is statistically likely to be in an altered state of mind, mentally ill, or has been released from the criminal justice system un-rehabilitated (or any combination of these).
In a country that can’t even keep drugs out of prisons, as well as other failures to enforce public safety, trying to restrict firearms from being possessed by anyone is not a reality.
As the public failures to enforce existing laws continue to be documented and published, most citizens develop a jaundiced view of the law in general. I think it was societal and family expectations that reinforced morality, not laws, and substituting laws for morality is folly also, given who writes and influences the laws, as well as the tyranny possible by governments selectively enforcing laws.
As you say, everyone being armed does up the stakes, but it ups the stakes for the right group of people - those people who would prey on others.
https://cosaction-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/public/pocket_guide_...
I like protonmail enough to buy their first tier email hosting, which gives this ability.
And, if I find a better email hosting service, or roll my own, my email doesn't change, of course.
I also budget things out so that I am not surprised to be escorted from the building, with the resulting loss of two weeks (possibly) income.
I don't want to hear about others' at the workplace, and no one needs to know about mine.
Maps and Pandora, no, browser and email, yes.
Yes, seriously.
This seems to equal being a good listener.
The trick is to learn to close the conversation when you are done with it, and avoid useless prattle from the other person.
But, as I hit my late 20s (circa 1998),I became the opposite at work, and that approach has gotten me much farther ever since.
Play the game.
Maybe you'd prefer I just vegetate at home (on whose dime?) instead of being employed.
Remote work is a reasonable possibility to consider, but having to start a new field, it makes sense to keep an office presence for training, mentoring, and other intangibles that come with human contact.
I like drive-thrus at restaurants, too.
And, if I were in this man's situation, my second stop would have been the local FBI office to report bank theft. ACTUAL bank theft.
I have, and will continue to, pass good privacy practices on to others, particularly non-tech users, even though people don't always have the time for privacy discussions, they become aware of the issues.
They could have used book activity records, I think.
I guess stripping personal information was too much work.
Funny how some people are all for gun owners (illegally) being maintained on a federal register, but ethnic or religious groups, not so much. I have been discussing this issue with my circle of influence since 1992.
It is illustrative of how some groups would use lists against the individual, but only bad if it is against their political authoritarian goals. Shoe on the other foot, and all that.
A critical piece of securing ones Internet, and a small price to pay to buy a good one. PIA passed the test for me, on mobile and desktop.
If I had a work spouse, does that mean I get alimony when we move on? If we're emotionally close enough to be considered "spouses" do we get special company policies designed to give us special privileges? If we split do we get a "work-divorce" and fight over our "child" projects"? If I have more than one "work spouse" at a time does that make make me a "work polygamist" subject to sanction by HR?
Let's not lose the language, people.
It's really telling about intentions, particularly in view of registries, or lists, where it's perfectly ok to keep a master list of gun purchasers, but not illegal aliens (or apparently, even visa holders). We were told "what's the harm in a list". Looks like we knew what what your intentions were the whole time for the list... Action against those people when possible or politically expedient...
I miss civil discourse on Internet forums.