....A Well-Regulated Militia.....

[Will Robinson]

All I'm saying is that there is a better way. You have to stop being afraid though.

I never said violence used in defense as a tool for stopping violence from aggressors is the best way in terms of a permanent solution that alters mans seemingly instinctive aggression. However, due to the nature of man, and the lack of a perfect alternative, it is still a very necessary tool in the box. It works really well and it is the kind of solution that governments seem to gravitate to....a one size fits all, easy to administer, doesn't require much from the administrators once it is set into action.

Like I said before, I'm not afraid, I've taken steps to provide security for myself and family. A measured response to a real threat.
If the government stopped administering violence on our behalf though I think you soon would be afraid and it wouldn't be caused by an old sheepdog like me, it would be the wolves out there realizing you are an easy lunch. You might find a sudden liking for my ways....

[woodchip]

I'd also like to state that when an otherwise peaceful person shoots a violent person in self-defense, the world is made LESS violent. Violence is not some kind of an undying entity that multiplies every time there is a violent occurrence. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Vision, it is just a matter of which violence you want to be responsible for. If you do nothing you will be responsible for violence to your sister. If you resort to violence against the attacker you are responsible for violence against him. Take your pick.

Which one is right?

Well let me ask you this vision, in the case of your younger sister, which actions you took/not took... would you be able to look her in the eye and see you did the right thing.

[Sergeant Thorne]

We ask our protectors to capture the murderers alive if possible...that is compassion governed by survival.

I don't believe it is always right to treat the status-quo as the ideal, and I would argue that it is not compassion which governs the live capture of murderers, but the existence of a system of justice in which a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. So the reason we don't just go out and kill murderers is that law enforcement officers are not judge, jury, and executioner. It is my opinion that murder should receive the death penalty. I might be willing to accept that maybe it shouldn't be so in the absence of truly damning evidence. I do think there is reason to believe that when justice is not done that it ultimately does damage to a society.

I'm thinking 'justice' is born, in part, from compassion. Otherwise having the captor perform as the judge would be expedient and probably where we would end up. Judge Dredd etc.

I can see having a degree of compassion on murder that is not premeditated, in certain situations. I think I can show that compassion is not what's holding us back from law enforcement being judge, jury, and executioner, though. I can't put my finger right on where the desire for such an extreme would come from (maybe partly from those in law enforcement), but it's easy to see that what will hold it back is a desire to prevent abuses. One day you or I may, hypothetically, be wrongly accused. Without due process we, or people we know, could be wrongfully executed at the hands of men who either don't have all of the facts in front of them, or perhaps have motives other than justice.

Maybe a minor distinction but 'justice' isn't an inherent human characteristic but empathy and compassion and anger are. I think of the concept of justice as the result of us focusing a culmination of base human desires/emotions. Without our empathy and compassion we would be dishing out revenge instead of justice.

Going to have to give that some thought.

[vision]

If the government stopped administering violence on our behalf though I think you soon would be afraid and it wouldn't be caused by an old sheepdog like me, it would be the wolves out there realizing you are an easy lunch. You might find a sudden liking for my ways....

Maybe you didn't read my other post. I will not act violently under any circumstances. I take "though shall not kill" more seriously than most (which is weird since atheists are supposed to suffer from moral relativism, haha).

Well let me ask you this vision, in the case of your younger sister, which actions you took/not took... would you be able to look her in the eye and see you did the right thing.

The point of that post was to show contradiction. One of you says there is the same amount of violence, just transferred from one to another, the other claims a decrease in overall violence. Which is true?

[Sergeant Thorne]

All right, vision, grow the ★■◆● up and stop pretending that you're above the argument. For the purposes of this BB what matters is what you have to say in response to either one (since they were directed at you by two different people), not whether they are in perfect agreement with each-other. We ain't dancin' for you.

This message brought to you by the Council for Bulletin Board Etiquette, which urges you not to be a dip-**** just because you have anonymity on your side.

[Will Robinson]

[...
The point of that post was to show contradiction. One of you says there is the same amount of violence, just transferred from one to another, the other claims a decrease in overall violence. Which is true?

I don't know if you are really that dense to not be able to think it through but here's the condensed '...for Dummies' version:
In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.

[callmeslick]

wow, this thread has gone 21 pages and morphed into abstract mathematics.....

[woodchip]

We have some talented people here

[Sergeant Thorne]

We have some talented people here

LOL! That should absolutely go on the DBB home page. Can the bulletin board have sigs?

[Tunnelcat]

wow, this thread has gone 21 pages and morphed into abstract mathematics.....

The Seven Degrees of DescentBB. Hmmmmmm. Maybe we should start a thread with that in mind. Start a thread based on Descent, go off topic and reconnect to Descent in seven posts, a la Kevin Bacon, over and over. Can it be done......................

[callmeslick]

TC, doesn't that explain the existence of this entire subforum?

[Tunnelcat]

True. But I'm thinking something more fun and challenging. You have to start with something related to Descent and be sure to end up right back at Descent again by the seventh post. How many connections can be made and for how long? Just thinking...............

[Will Robinson]

True. But I'm thinking something more fun and challenging. You have to start with something related to Descent and be sure to end up right back at Descent again by the seventh post. How many connections can be made and for how long? Just thinking...............

I'll do it in one. Obama is a spawn camping drone whore.

[vision]

[...
The point of that post was to show contradiction. One of you says there is the same amount of violence, just transferred from one to another, the other claims a decrease in overall violence. Which is true?

I don't know if you are really that dense to not be able to think it through but here's the condensed '...for Dummies' version:
In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.

Cool, glad to see you like to add assumptions into your theories. Well done.

[Will Robinson]

[...
The point of that post was to show contradiction. One of you says there is the same amount of violence, just transferred from one to another, the other claims a decrease in overall violence. Which is true?

I don't know if you are really that dense to not be able to think it through but here's the condensed '...for Dummies' version:
In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.

Cool, glad to see you like to add assumptions into your theories. Well done.

Well my theory is literally one of the most practiced and proven systems of control ever used in the history of mankind!
I bet you could find more than a fair amount of documentation to back it up...like pehaps volumes of psychology studies, scholars who specialize in the study of that practice and such!

if you could pull your head out long enough to think about it.

[vision]

In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.....

Well my theory is literally one of the most practiced and proven systems of control ever used in the history of mankind!
I bet you could find more than a fair amount of documentation to back it up...like pehaps volumes of psychology studies, scholars who specialize in the study of that practice and such!
if you could pull your head out long enough to think about it.

Yep. The United States "stopped an aggressors violence by an act of violence" when we preemptively invaded Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were not killed as a result and violence has gone down since the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Sounds legit. Thanks for clarifying that up for me. Now if we could just get Israel to attack Iran, who clearly wants to act violently toward them, world peace will happen.

[Will Robinson]

In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.....

Well my theory is literally one of the most practiced and proven systems of control ever used in the history of mankind!
I bet you could find more than a fair amount of documentation to back it up...like pehaps volumes of psychology studies, scholars who specialize in the study of that practice and such!
if you could pull your head out long enough to think about it.

Yep. The United States "stopped an aggressors violence by an act of violence" when we preemptively invaded Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were not killed as a result and violence has gone down since the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Sounds legit. Thanks for clarifying that up for me. Now if we could just get Israel to attack Iran, who clearly wants to act violently toward them, world peace will happen.

Is a Strawman the best you can do?

[woodchip]

So if you thought that the Dems were going to pass "common sense" fire arm rules, check out what the Dems in MO are planning:

"Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony."

Plan on a similar nationwide scenario if the Dems get control of the house in 2014.

[Burlyman]

heh

What the founding "fathers" had in mind was the creation of a government with absolute tyrannical power; if you don't believe me, read article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the CON

but yeah there are too many foolish mortals killing indoctrinated children

[callmeslick]

Burleyman, the text you mention:
'
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17



To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

this is about establishment of a national capital, which we ultimately did in Washington DC, from lands ceded by Maryland and Virginia. What the heck are you deriving from this passage? Or, if you're simply smoking something, please share.

[Tunnelcat]

True. But I'm thinking something more fun and challenging. You have to start with something related to Descent and be sure to end up right back at Descent again by the seventh post. How many connections can be made and for how long? Just thinking...............

I'll do it in one. Obama is a spawn camping drone whore.

Yeah, and Bush/Cheney was the bastard spawn of the "Alien Boss" whoremonger from Tycho Brahe, and one part of it still lives!

[Tunnelcat]

Hmmm. I guess someone actually saved others by using their gun - lawfully. The exception to the norm can happen sometimes.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/finally-g ... 12631.html

[Will Robinson]

Hmmm. I guess someone actually saved others by using their gun - lawfully. The exception to the norm can happen sometimes.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/finally-g ... 12631.html

Do you really believe it is an "exception to the norm"? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it fits your track record completely.
Your core perspective is very flawed.

I've posted the studies of interviews and FBI crime reports in this thread where you can see that the average use of a gun to stop a violent assault is 120,000 per year! Those aren't NRA selective statistics...and they aren't every report to a law enforcement agency that a gun was used in self defense which averages close to 2 million times per year.....these are the filtered out results from those inflated statistics that make up the real 'norm'!

This is why it is so frustrating to have a discussion with you and slick and vision etc. You all just blatantly ignore reality like willful pawns used to sustain a dishonest cult of illogical ideology.

[Tunnelcat]

It's an exception to the norm if one only listens to the mainstream press. So you're right Will, self-defense scenarios using a personal gun does happen a lot more than is reported. My fail. Which begs the question, why is there so much need to defend oneself with a gun in a "supposedly civil society". Scary.

http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

[Sergeant Thorne]

It's an exception to the norm if one only listens to the mainstream press.

Only it offends reality to phrase it that way. Rather the mainstream press is out of touch with the real norm., which is that firearms do much more good than harm--are used far more in defense than in offense! Stop listening to and reading liberal propaganda and I see you making a full recovery.

[Will Robinson]

It's an exception to the norm if one only listens to the mainstream press. So you're right Will, self-defense scenarios using a personal gun does happen a lot more than is reported. My fail. Which begs the question, why is there so much need to defend oneself with a gun in a "supposedly civil society". ...

That is a question with lots of complicated answers, most of which are obvious.
The important thing to remember in the current politically charged conversation is, anyone trying to answer that question by suggesting we should disarm the law abiding people is a raving maniac....or a very devious, self serving, bastard of the highest order!

[sigma]

It is yet known, in what to the country more terrible to live for the law-abiding citizen. In Russia sale of the fighting weapon to the population is forbidden. But there is a lot of illegal weapon. Because it is possible to pay off from punishment for a crime. If there are communications in power structures, the wrongdoer too won't incur any punishment if this fact doesn't become known to the press. At us very many crimes are committed also acting or former police officers without any punishment. The ordinary law-abiding citizen is absolutely defenseless before criminals.

[woodchip]

Which begs the question, why is there so much need to defend oneself with a gun in a "supposedly civil society". Scary.

http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

What makes you think we live in a civil society?

[callmeslick]

speaking of civil behavior, the countdown has started:
http://countingdownto.com/countdown/176293

[callmeslick]

in the news today:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/emotio ... gro,31836/





happy April 1, everyone!

[Spidey]

I couldn’t understand all of it, but I do believe the Russian dude had the most enlightened thing to say in this entire thread.

[flip]

That's because he has learned first hand Spidey.

On December 28, 14 days after the brutal shooting of Sitting Bull, the U.S. Army sought to disarm and relocate the Lakota people, who failed to stop their Ghost Dance.

The U.S. authorities ordered the arrest of another Lakota chief, Big Foot. Big Foot’s band, which consisted mostly of women who had lost their husbands and other male relatives in battles with Custer, Miles and Crook, had danced until they collapsed, hoping to guarantee the return of their dead warriors. Big Foot and about 350 Lakota marched to Pine Ridge Reservation to seek protection from the military. At Pine Ridge they surrendered on December 28, 1890, and were escorted to Wounded Knee by the military, where they established a camp at Wounded Knee Creek.

The following morning, December 29, 1890, the military ordered all Indian weapons to be relinquished and burned. A medicine man advocated armed resistance telling the other Indians that their Ghost Dance shirts were bulletproof.

A shot was fired by an unidentified gunman.

On the frozen plains at Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation, government troops opened fire on the mostly unarmed Lakota people, and massacred 290 Sioux men, women and children, including many trying to flee, in a matter of minutes. Thirty-three soldiers died, most from friendly fire, 20 Medals of Honor were presented to surviving soldiers.

Some chance is better than no chance and being shot while defending yourself has to be better than helplessly watching your loved ones shot in the back.

[Spidey]

Yea, the idea that government oppression would always come in the form of tanks and F16s is absurd.

[Tunnelcat]

No, it's more like this kind of insidiousness.

[flip]

In this day and age, privacy only exists to the extent government agencies decide to respect it. Only way to keep yourself safe is complete integrity in everything you do.

[Tunnelcat]

Actually, when the original laws were written in 1986, no one thought that anyone would keep any emails on a some server for any longer than 180 days. Hah! Talk about lack of foresight.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... rch-policy

In a 2009 handbook, for example, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users "do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications."

Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, government officials only need a subpoena, issued without a judge's approval, to demand that an Internet company turn over emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.

More:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle ... -a-warrant

[Will Robinson]

The FairTax bill has the abolishment of the IRS as its prerequisite....

[Tunnelcat]

The ONLY good thing going for it.

[Will Robinson]

The ONLY good thing going for it.

In the history of legislation in America that would go down as the single biggest improvement to our collective good that ever took place! So "only" is plenty!

I'm not being hyperbolic either. If you 'follow the money' as they say, you will find the source of so much injustice and corruption in our system is a line in the tax code that legalizes whatever bad outcome you are investigating!

Take away the politicians ability to create exemptions for their supporters and you wipe out so much that is wrong with things today. An example is how they hand out, for a price, all sorts of corporate welfare in the tax code to big campaign money contributors....

To describe that as a diminutive "only" just shows me you aren't really considering what it would accomplish. You are still stuck on following the training you have taken regarding automatic refusal of anything from outside your Party's talking points.

"Only"....heh!

[Tunnelcat]

Consumption taxes are about as popular here in Oregon as an ingrown toenail. Right now, our esteemed Democratic legislature in Oregon is floating the sales tax idea............again. Most people asked about it on the streets said "No way in hell" if it was just another added tax. HOWEVER, most said that they would go for it IF the property tax was eliminated. I'd even buy that.