In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[Kevin]

I was being specific to the military on the battlefield. In CQB, shorter rifles are used, including carbines. I'm not why you're focusing solely on rate of fire, which is pretty well the same across the spectrum of semi-automatics.

 

Have you ever fired either a semi-auto pistol or rifle?

 

Do you deny that rebellion is a human right?

 

I think that Hasan pretty much said everything I would say on the issue a few posts above.

 

I do not deny it in theory, but I deny the plausibility of any legitimate scenario occurring in this country that would make it either justified morally or likely to succeed, unless the Michigan Militia and their ilk back where I come from have hangers full of bombers hidden somewhere. Though the main thing is, this is not Syria and or Libya and everyone knows it, and everyone pretending otherwise is kidding themselves.

[Winchester]

I think that Hasan pretty much said everything I would say on the issue a few posts above.

 

I do not deny it in theory, but I deny the plausibility of any legitimate scenario occurring in this country that would make it either justified morally or likely to succeed, unless the Michigan Militia and their ilk back where I come from have hangers full of bombers hidden somewhere. Though the main thing is, this is not Syria and or Libya and everyone knows it, and everyone pretending otherwise is kidding themselves.

 

There were some other questions, too.

 

Actually, there was one other question. Have you fired semi-auto pistols or rifles?

 

 

But if rebellion is a human right, then you can't oppose ownership of weapons based on the fear that someone might rebel. This isn't about whether the conditions in the US are suitable for rebellion. Certainly, it would be morally acceptable for a raw milk seller to expel armed agents of the State from his land (but they would kidnap or murder him, if he tried), or for McDonald's to continue to sell sodas in unapproved sizes in New York, and to resist if armed men were sent to stop them (again, this would result in the kidnap or murder of those resisting). I personally don't think armed insurrection is called for on any large scale, and don't think it would be very successful. Every militia group I've seen strikes me as kind of silly, although every one of them I've seen engages in some kind of nationalist rhetoric, which indicates they would be revolutionaries, instead of rebels.

 

It also would have been morally acceptable for the people in New Orleans to refuse to give up their weapons to the soldiers who were sent to take their property from them. One group of soldiers refused to participate in this assault and theft. All the others committed crimes (well, torts) against people. I think threatening people with kidnapping, imprisonment, or death over the mere ownership of a particular item (so long as the item is not causing actual damage to the property of others, such as might be caused by radioactive material or the use of ordnance) is immoral. My neighbor might decide to hack off my head with his hatchet--the potential use of an item is not sufficient to warrant my use of violence against him. If he were to threaten me, of course, I would be within my rights to defend myself.

 

I am curious why you place the State above the individual, since the State (according to our various founding documents) is a creature of the individuals. It is subordinate to the people. Indeed, it is made up of mere people. So far as I know, there is no magical ceremony that purifies our government officials of the normal faults of man. Perhaps there is some kind of genetic engineering?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Winchester

[Kevin]

There were some other questions, too.

 

Actually, there was one other question. Have you fired semi-auto pistols or rifles?

 

 

But if rebellion is a human right, then you can't oppose ownership of weapons based on the fear that someone might rebel. This isn't about whether the conditions in the US are suitable for rebellion. Certainly, it would be morally acceptable for a raw milk seller to expel armed agents of the State from his land (but they would kidnap or murder him, if he tried), or for McDonald's to continue to sell sodas in unapproved sizes in New York, and to resist if armed men were sent to stop them (again, this would result in the kidnap or murder of those resisting). I personally don't think armed insurrection is called for on any large scale, and don't think it would be very successful. Every militia group I've seen strikes me as kind of silly, although every one of them I've seen engages in some kind of nationalist rhetoric, which indicates they would be revolutionaries, instead of rebels.

 

It also would have been morally acceptable for the people in New Orleans to refuse to give up their weapons to the soldiers who were sent to take their property from them. One group of soldiers refused to participate in this assault and theft. All the others committed crimes (well, torts) against people. I think threatening people with kidnapping, imprisonment, or death over the mere ownership of a particular item (so long as the item is not causing actual damage to the property of others, such as might be caused by radioactive material or the use of ordnance) is immoral. My neighbor might decide to hack off my head with his hatchet--the potential use of an item is not sufficient to warrant my use of violence against him. If he were to threaten me, of course, I would be within my rights to defend myself.

 

I am curious why you place the State above the individual, since the State (according to our various founding documents) is a creature of the individuals. It is subordinate to the people. Indeed, it is made up of mere people. So far as I know, there is no magical ceremony that purifies our government officials of the normal faults of man. Perhaps there is some kind of genetic engineering?

 

No I haven't. However, since I am not made of metal, I think I have a right to be worried about getting shot and people who want to make it more likely for that to happen through their devotion to American exceptionalism , which is at the heart of the matter - we are the only liberal Democracy with a completely backward policy on gun control, and as a result we are all more likely suffer a violent death at the hands of an Adam Lanza or James Holmes than someone in France. And yes, I'm aware of the Norway shooting, but we've had two shootings just as bad as that just this year, as opposed to one in Europe over probably 10 years.

 

As to the issue you mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain. I doubt there was any kidnapping or death threats involved, but if you've got some credible sources, by all means bring them out. And yes, with a hatchet, he could - and he has a right to a hatchet, though he could do so. However, hatchets do other things besides violence - but what is the other use of a gun? A man has a right to a hatchet since he might chop wood, but he has to right to a portable devise that can fire 40 hatchets in a number of seconds at speed that could pierce metal.

 

Yes, of the people - all of the people, they elect officials who make laws that reflect the desires of their constituents on how the government should be. That is how Democracy works. There are already numerous provisions in the Constitution that give a handicap to minority opinion holders so that government does not because a mere tyranny of the majority. I find it an acceptable mode of governance, as acceptable as one could hope compared to the alternative.s

Edited December 20, 2012 by Kevin

[Winchester]

No I haven't. However, since I am not made of metal, I think I have a right to be worried about getting shot and people who want to make it more likely for that to happen through their devotion to American exceptionalism ,

 

It has nothing to do with that. I was just wondering if you were able to get back on target with a pistol as quickly as with a rifle.

 

American exceptionalism is the belief that the US is somehow exceptional--a better "nation" than others. I reject American exceptionalism and all its fruits: Wars of intervention, economic warfare, political interventionism.

[Winchester]

As to the issue you mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain. I doubt there was any kidnapping or death threats involved, but if you've got some credible sources, by all means bring them out. And yes, with a hatchet, he could - and he has a right to a hatchet, though he could do so. However, hatchets do other things besides violence - but what is the other use of a gun? A man has a right to a hatchet since he might chop wood, but he has to right to a portable devise that can fire 40 hatchets in a number of seconds at speed that could pierce metal.

 

Yes, of the people - all of the people, they elect officials who make laws that reflect the desires of their constituents on how the government should be. That is how Democracy works. There are already numerous provisions in the Constitution that give a handicap to minority opinion holders so that government does not because a mere tyranny of the majority. I find it an acceptable mode of governance, as acceptable as one could hope compared to the alternative.s

 

Make the argument yourself, explaining how the Federal government has the moral and Constitutional right to raid raw milk sellers. Don't bother with the docu-dumping. Especially when it's on eminent domain, instead of prohibition. Raw mile raids are conducted using armed officers. The laws in New York are enforced by armed officers. The removal of weapons from people in New Orleans was conducted by armed officers. Deny reality, if you like. They don't send the cops to ask. You're being told, and if you disobey, you will be assaulted, kidnapped, and they are within the laws to kill you over it.

 

Your comment about the 40 hatchets in a number of seconds doesn't deal with what I said. Reread and respond appropriately.

 

I reject that being in the majority exempts one from morality. If 51% of people decide to take from 49%, that does not cease to be theft because numerical superiority exists. At any rate, we live in a Constitutional democratic republic. In theory, the majority is bound by the Constitution: Federal abridgement of the right of the people is proscribed. Local and state governments (in contravention to the Supreme Court ruling) are perfectly free to do so.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Winchester

[Lil Red]

putting this here: (AND SINCE SOME PEOPLE CAN'T READ, ALL THE BELOW IS QUOTED FROM THE LINKED BLOG ARTICLE AND NOT WRITTEN BY ME)

http://www.corneredcat.com/its-about-love/

 

An anti-gun friend of mine (yes, I have them too) wrote this on Facebook: “I am more than happy to sacrifice my own individual rights for a greater good…”  The implication being, of course, that in order to protect our families and our communities, we must give up some of our rights, including the right to own and use effective tools for protecting ourselves and our loved ones. What I wonder is, would this person be equally willing to exercise her rights for the greater good? Because, you see, when we choose to protect ourselves, our families, and the people we love, we are acting for the greater good of our communities. By being prepared to stop violent acts, we are helping the people around us stay safe, and we are lowering the risk of violence happening at all.

 

“Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean,” wrote Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Let each responsible adult prepare to protect herself and the people around her, and the violent crime rate drops. Make it illegal or difficult for ordinary people to defend themselves, and violent crime rates go up. We don’t carry firearms to protect the whole world, but our willingness to defend ourselves does have a protective effect on the people around us.

 

And that brings us to the nasty little implication hidden in my friend’s sentence. It’s an accusation that you and I own firearms only as an act of selfishness. We only want to keep our rights because they’re ours, and we don’t care about the people around us. You know that’s not true, I know that’s not true, but … this person doesn’t know that, just as most anti-gun or even neutral people don’t know it. What she “knows” is that gun owners are more concerned about their gun rights than they are about the 20 children laid to rest this week in Connecticut. She “knows” that, and frames her argument based on that wrong idea.

 

We have to tell her, that’s not true. We can say it kindly, factually, passionately, bravely, or with our knees knocking together. But say it we must. Here’s what is true: we own guns because we are deeply concerned about the safety of our families and our communities. We support the right to own firearms—all types of firearms—because we believe that gun ownership saves lives. We believe in the right to carry guns because we believe that carrying guns helps good people stay safe from acts of evil. We hate gun-free zones because they make it easier for violent criminals to murder innocent victims. We support human rights as they relate to firearms not because we are selfish, but because we love people and want to see good people able to defend themselves from murderous madmen such as the one who slaughtered a classroom full of little children at an elementary school in Connecticut.

 

So yes, I’m concerned about our gun rights in the wake of this awful event. But my concern for gun rights is not an act of selfishness. It’s an act of love. I love the people around me, and want them able to stay safe.

 

....

 

Last night, I talked to a friend of mine. This woman teaches at an elementary school in California. Like most schools in that state, her school has many entrances and exits, multiple buildings, and a campus that would be a nightmare to truly secure. My friend was sad, even angry, that neither she nor anyone around her would be able to protect “her” children in the case of a copycat attack. She would be expected to cower, and hide, and perhaps die – simply because there was no legal way for her to vigorously defend the children she loves. We talked about some of her options, including improvised weapons that would raise no eyebrows if she kept them in her classroom. We talked about making the decision to protect yourself and others. We talked about … the murderer.

Not that one.

The next  one.

 

The one that she knows. That everyone in her district knows. The smart, manipulative teenager with a hair-trigger temper and absolutely no empathy. The one whose own mom thinks he will kill her someday. The one who has been bounced from school, to school, to school within the system, who can’t be kept in an inpatient facility, and whose violent schizophrenic tendencies are getting worse. That kid.

 

“What can I do about him?” she asked me. “How can I keep him away from my school and out of my classroom?”

 

I have no answers. Within the system as it is right now, there is literally no way to stop that kid from committing murder. His own parents can’t get him into a treatment facility that will keep him longer than a few days. Even though literally every person in that teenager’s life knows that he will kill someone someday, he cannot be locked up. Not yet. Not until he snaps and kills someone… or a  whole classroom full of someones.

 

We should do something about that. That’s a conversation our society needs to have. But meanwhile, let me point this out: Not every potential murderer gives such clear warning signs.

 

Shouldn’t the intended victims have a way to fight back, if and when?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Lil Red

[Kevin]

 

I have no answers. Within the system as it is right now, there is literally no way to stop that kid from committing murder. His own parents can’t get him into a treatment facility that will keep him longer than a few days. Even though literally every person in that teenager’s life knows that he will kill someone someday, he cannot be locked up. Not yet. Not until he snaps and kills someone… or a  whole classroom full of someones.

 

We should do something about that. That’s a conversation our society needs to have. But meanwhile, let me point this out: Not every potential murderer gives such clear warning signs.

 

I find your attitude much more deeply troubling than anything I have seen on this thread. I can understand the reasons for thinking of extensive gun ownership as a positive, I just don't think they correspond with the facts. But you seem to be suggesting we start a witch hunt against people with mental illness, and I hope that God in his wisdom will prevent you and people who share such views from stirring up this country into a state of hysteria.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Kevin

[Lil Red]

I find your attitude much more deeply troubling than anything I have seen on this thread. I can understand the reasons for thinking of extensive gun ownership as a positive, I just don't think they correspond with the facts. But you seem to be suggesting we start a witch hunt against people with mental illness, and I hope that God in his wisdom will prevent you and people who share such views from stirring up this country into a state of hysteria.

 

did you forget to read where I linked to the article? Those aren't my thoughts, but the blog author's thoughts. try reading more thoroughly next time.

 

:doh:

 

also: I seriously doubt that the blog author is suggesting we start a witch hunt. :rolleyes:

[Winchester]

Lack of props is becoming a real issue, here.

[MissScripture]

Let me get this straight: it is wrong to try and fix the system so that people who desperately need help with their mental health can get that help and protect those around them from harm. It is okay to take the guns away from people who have done nothing other than owned a gun. Got it.

[4588686]

Mentally ill people don't need to be locked up for being mentally ill they need treatment.  Oh, what?  The party tat keeps pushing to saturate the country with guns and help their friends in the arms industry like S&W PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS!!! also keeps cutting state support for people with mental health issues?  Hm.  That seems like a solid policy combo!

[Winchester]

I find your attitude much more deeply troubling than anything I have seen on this thread. I can understand the reasons for thinking of extensive gun ownership as a positive, I just don't think they correspond with the facts. But you seem to be suggesting we start a witch hunt against people with mental illness, and I hope that God in his wisdom will prevent you and people who share such views from stirring up this country into a state of hysteria.

 

It's a shame your imagination only kicks in when attempting to imagine nefarious plots by those who don't worship the State.

 

Your hysteria against guns in the hands of ordinary mortals is the good kind of hysteria, I take it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Winchester

[Kevin]

Make the argument yourself, explaining how the Federal government has the moral and Constitutional right to raid raw milk sellers. Don't bother with the docu-dumping. Especially when it's on eminent domain, instead of prohibition. Raw mile raids are conducted using armed officers. The laws in New York are enforced by armed officers. The removal of weapons from people in New Orleans was conducted by armed officers. Deny reality, if you like. They don't send the cops to ask. You're being told, and if you disobey, you will be assaulted, kidnapped, and they are within the laws to kill you over it.

 

Your comment about the 40 hatchets in a number of seconds doesn't deal with what I said. Reread and respond appropriately.

 

I reject that being in the majority exempts one from morality. If 51% of people decide to take from 49%, that does not cease to be theft because numerical superiority exists. At any rate, we live in a Constitutional democratic republic. In theory, the majority is bound by the Constitution: Federal abridgement of the right of the people is proscribed. Local and state governments (in contravention to the Supreme Court ruling) are perfectly free to do so.

 

Raw milk poses a serious risk to public health. If the owners of those weapons held them in violation of the law, the police were right to confiscate them. If those people resisted, they were rightfully arrested. They should not have been assaulted unless they offered violent resistence, and if they were then steps should be taken to discipline such officers.

 

I did read what you said - the basis of your argument is the innocuousness of the hatchet "so long as the item is not causing actual damage to the property of others, such as might be caused by radioactive material or the use of ordnance". I am saying the possessing of a hatchet and the possession of an weapon are inherently different because of what they are intended to be used for. There is no use for a weapon other than violence, and if the capacity for violence of that weapon outstrips what a private citizen would need for home protection (which is a fallacy, but I will grant at least in argument), he has no legitimate use for such a weapon save to attempt violence on a mass scale.

 

If the ownership of the item is inherently something that should not be owned or sold, as is the case of raw milk and weapons, then it is not a theft. For example, slaves were owned. I will grant that guns right in general cannot be removed without a Constitutional amendment, but the government is wholly within its rights to place reasonable restriction on the use and sales of firearms, as has been established in many cases. The fact the Federal Assault Weapons ban was never challenged should be indication enough of this. Rather, it was the cowardice of the legislature in refusing to stand up to the NRA and its allies to pass a bill strong enough to do what that law was intended to do but failed do to the exploitation of loopholes by that same organization.

 

Friend, and as a Christian I think I can call you that, I think you are incorrect on this matter, and that you are going against the march of civilization, but it seems unlikely either of us will change our positions. I only hope that you and those sharing your views will pursue peaceful means to protest against the legislation against semi-automatic weapons that is, regardless of this particular incident, and with reference to the aforementioned march of civilization, inevitably going to pass.

[KnightofChrist]

I find your attitude much more deeply troubling than anything I have seen on this thread. I can understand the reasons for thinking of extensive gun ownership as a positive, I just don't think they correspond with the facts. But you seem to be suggesting we start a witch hunt against people with mental illness, and I hope that God in his wisdom will prevent you and people who share such views from stirring up this country into a state of hysteria.

I don't see how she is advocating a witch hunt against the mentally ill. I don't think she's even the author of the article. I see how she trying to inform others about the dangers that actually caused the most recent massacres. But let's your side is successful in your 'witch hunt', the State punishes everyone with guns, because of the crimes of a mentally ill person, by stealing their property. Will it stop these types of massacres? No. It will not. There have been various countries who do not allow their citizens to own guns but these things still happen! Making people defenseless just makes it easier for the wicked and insane to commit their wickedness. The psycho who shot up the movie theatre had multiple ones to pick from, he picked the one that did not allow concealed weapons. All the others near him did. Banning concealed guns didn't save anyone who died there, the schools ban on all guns by everyone didn't save any of the children who died. The states that have strict gun control laws always have have higher crime and murder rates. Gun control fails to stop murder and mass murder. Anyway should the witch hunt against gun owners is successful but these massacres still happen what then? What then? Can we address the mental illness issue then, or the glorification of violence found in movies and video games that the wicked men copy? Or find another scapegoat to blame?

[Anomaly]

I find your attitude much more deeply troubling than anything I have seen on this thread. I can understand the reasons for thinking of extensive gun ownership as a positive, I just don't think they correspond with the facts. But you seem to be suggesting we start a witch hunt against people with mental illness, and I hope that God in his wisdom will prevent you and people who share such views from stirring up this country into a state of hysteria.

 

I honestly find your attitude and hatred very troubling.  You refuse to acknowledge real facts and twist other people's posts into a vile and hateful stereotype.  Gun owners are all vicous murders.  The problem is a very few people who are compelled to hurt a large number of others, whether it's kids in a school, people in a mall, or people at a movie.  The 'gun debate' should only be periphial and secondary because it can be used as a weapon.  It was repeatedly pointed out that attcks are committed with guns, bombs, and knives. Rather than debating the motives of people who are correcting misconceptions and emotional responses to the concept of guns, the discussion should be about providing assistance to mentally ill persons, their care givers, thier family, their friends.

 

It's not a witch hunt to have a serious and honest discussion of the type of people and motivation behind these horrendous acts of violence against innocent children, teens, adults, and ederly.  Instead of debating the efficacy of kiling tools with gun experts, maybe it should be a discussion with psychologists, sociologists, and other advocates providing care for people with mental and emotional problems.  Instead of debating what caliber and speed of shooting these people turn to, maybe society should be turning it's attention and effort at learning how to identify persons who are struggling and how to cope with their problems and provide some assistance.  Maybe society should be trying to be more effective at providing help to care givers.  It's disturbing that you call that a 'witch hunt'.