DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Are we allowed to acknowledge that AR-15 type weapons aren't necessarily the weapon of choice in multiple-target shooting incidents, while still wondering why the hell your average civilian needs one lying around the house?

Yes "we" are! In fact, that's covered under the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution! My right to own the AR-15 that you're wondering about is covered in the 2nd amendment, in case you hadn't heard. Also, no one leaves them "lying around the house".

Oh, but they do, and that's the ★■◆● of it all.

Anyways, I'm glad you answered like that, because it allows me to segue into the opinion that will really get under your skin: I don't consider the 2nd Amendment as it stands, or at the very least how it's interpreted by most of you, to be particularly relevant in the 21st century, and what's more, I don't feel that the Framers' contemporary views on why they wrote it as they did should necessarily be held as sacrosanct today. I'll elaborate on that in a bit, if you all haven't died from apoplectic shock first.

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...
Also, no one leaves them "lying around the house".

Oh, but they do, and that's the ★■◆● of it all.

Well if that's the problem then feel free to support legislation that severely punishes those that cause that problem! I'll join you! That would be sensible and effective and welcomed by most.
It doesn't infringe on our rights and might have even saved some lives in Sandy Hook...


Of course if you are a white person you are a racist for 'passing a law that only white people can afford to obey'...yep...we've been down that road and that's the neighborhood we ended up in.....the corner of Sharpton Blvd and Jackson Drive...

But seriously I'm all for it, and end the gun show loophole make instant background he law of the land. It has flaws, lots of false positives resulting in perfectly safe people being denied the purchase for months until the background check is corrected..

But something tells me you won't be happy with anything that allows us to be armed with effective weapons at all.

Honestly I'd be extremely happy if everything you said there came to pass. I would still find it extremely curious that some people see a legitimate need to have certain types of weapons in their homes, but I would feel much more comfortable about that being the case if there were comprehensive background checks going on with every sale.

Honestly my greater problem remains the overall gun culture in this country, where so many do see powerful firearms as items they desire to have, and the resulting size of the pedestal that the Second Amendment has been placed upon. That kind of gets back to the sentiments I expressed in my last post, though.

Top Gun wrote:Anyways, I'm glad you answered like that, because it allows me to segue into the opinion that will really get under your skin: I don't consider the 2nd Amendment as it stands, or at the very least how it's interpreted by most of you, to be particularly relevant in the 21st century, and what's more, I don't feel that the Framers' contemporary views on why they wrote it as they did should necessarily be held as sacrosanct today. I'll elaborate on that in a bit, if you all haven't died from apoplectic shock first.

If they haven't died of shock after me stating the same thing about 15 pages and three weeks ago, I doubt you're going to push them over the edge.

Top Gun wrote:

Anyways, I'm glad you answered like that, because it allows me to segue into the opinion that will really get under your skin: I don't consider the 2nd Amendment as it stands, or at the very least how it's interpreted by most of you, to be particularly relevant in the 21st century, and what's more, I don't feel that the Framers' contemporary views on why they wrote it as they did should necessarily be held as sacrosanct today. I'll elaborate on that in a bit, if you all haven't died from apoplectic shock first.

And this segue's into my other post. With Obama thinking it is wise and just to order the extra judicial killing of American citizens, why do you think the right to bear arms against a tyrannical govt is any less relevant today than it was 300 years ago?

to answer woody(and don't get me wrong, I am, as I said, upset with this 'interpretation' ), the extrajudicial killings would not be on American soil, and also, nothing that anyone here has provided information about owning would protect them from a drone attack.

callmeslick wrote:to answer woody(and don't get me wrong, I am, as I said, upset with this 'interpretation' ), the extrajudicial killings would not be on American soil, and also, nothing that anyone here has provided information about owning would protect them from a drone attack.

Don't forget we have some pretty talented hackers here. If Iran can hack into a drone's guidance system I suspect we can too. Like I said before, if it gets to where the govt is using drones against us within the confines of our country, the pooch is well and truly screwed.

I think it is illogical to want to dismiss the 'anti-tyranny' component of the 2nd's purpose because 'rifle-doesn't-equal-tank/rocket/jet'.
If that logic is to be the deciding factor then clearly 'rifle=better than nothing' so if you truly are concerned with the effectiveness of an anti-tyranny component you should be looking to augment the provision. And we all know the anti-gunners aren't looking for that.
So I reject that argument as completely disingenuous, or, at best very illogical.

As I posted before, one of Madisons supporters for the 2nd's purpose as a counter to allowing the Feds to have a standing army said 'he understood it (private citizens with their own weapons) might not be enough to stop government oppression at first but it was, at the least, the necessary seed of the revolution that would follow'. Without it the odds get very very grim.

Just because you don't think it will be needed doesn't mean it shouldn't be there for us. Most of us buy health insurance that we hope is never needed and apparently the leftwingers think that kind of thinking should be mandated!

Seems like there is a ex LAPD cop on a mission to kill fellow cops and their families. Just caught a little news about it, but sounds like he has the whole LAPD police locked down, as he is succeeding in his plan. So if this one guy can hold a whole city's police force in thrall, imaging what a couple hundred thousand peeps could do. So much for drones/tanks and jet fighters eh?

Might be interesting to follow this case.

Had this conversation taken place in person I think slick would have died of a gunshot wound.

woodchip wrote:Seems like there is a ex LAPD cop on a mission to kill fellow cops and their families. Just caught a little news about it, but sounds like he has the whole LAPD police locked down, as he is succeeding in his plan. So if this one guy can hold a whole city's police force in thrall, imaging what a couple hundred thousand peeps could do. So much for drones/tanks and jet fighters eh?

Might be interesting to follow this case.

I followed it this afternoon, when I returned home. Big difference to remember, Woody, is the lockdown is due to his threats against 'anyone who crossed me', and would not be the cautious scenario in any of these(IMO goofy) scenarios about the govt vs rebelling citizens. Then, it would just be like Baltimore on a Saturday night: shoot first, ask later.

vision wrote:Had this conversation taken place in person I think slick would have died of a gunshot wound.

nahhh, I think much more bark than bite in this crowd.



....Thorne sort of worries me, though.

callmeslick wrote:....Thorne sort of worries me, though.

I would feel a lot less nervous if the gun advocates preached non-violence once in a while.

I don't know about that,vision.....I hear guys at my Sportsman's Club talk the same talk after a few beers, but the same guys sit on the porch with me and do nothing more menacing than scratching my dog's ears while letting him sit in their lap. I think, sometimes, it sounds tough and reassuring to talk about violence, but most all the people I have ever encountered avoid violence at all costs. The only ones that didn't were either near-psycopaths or really stupid.

The problem is how do you find and weed out all the psychopaths in any society and then what do you do with them? There's a never ending supply, because there will always be some mental illness in any population.

I think you're jumping a few rungs beyond your grasp there, TC. The first question is, does the nature of a society contribute to the amount of insanity which crops up in that society. I would go a rung or two past that myself, because I believe it does.

As for slick and vision, you guys need to back up and understand the medium you're dealing with here. It's narrow. I would never shoot slick, and I probably wouldn't shoot vision either (kidding about the "probably" ). I am not a violent person. I was kind of violent when I was young, and even then I never actually wanted to shoot anyone. I'm also not the kind of person who indulges in empty, tough talk (except when I'm being over-the-top in jest).

vision wrote:I would feel a lot less nervous if the gun advocates preached non-violence once in a while.

It would take time out of our already busy schedules, and more pertinently attention from the main thrust of the topic, to deviate into talking about non-violence in a thread where the topic is taking our firearms. I would say no-one here lives up to that standard you have there. We talk about what we're talking about, we argue the point, and you take that and presume that it is our entire picture of a broader subject... If you want to talk about the subject of non-violence, stop talking about why you don't think we need our guns, and start a topic about the subject of non-violence.

you realize, Thorne, I was merely trying to get a rise out of you.....no, I have no fear that you would shoot me. You might attempt to wrestle me to the ground and pummel me with garden tools or something, but not shoot me....

I'd use a shovel!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...and I probably wouldn't shoot vision either (kidding about the "probably" ). I am not a violent person.

That's not cute or funny. Violence isn't a joke. I especially find it disturbing from people who take their moral guidelines from a book of violence. You can't be trusted.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It would take time out of our already busy schedules, and more pertinently attention from the main thrust of the topic, to deviate into talking about non-violence in a thread where the topic is taking our firearms.

Except this is exactly where the topic of non-violence should be brought up. If you really want guns for protection against violence, you should make it clear that you would never harm another person. All I read here is the continual celebration of violence (yeah, look how awesome this guy is, he shot the bad guy! guns are awesome!). Makes me sick. I would never own a gun because I would never use it under any circumstances. I can't see Jesus or a Buddha doing it, likewise I can't see myself doing it.

No I didn't realize that, slick. I would shoot you before I used garden tools, though.

I thought it was funny, vision/Buddha. But only because it was in jest and it's no secret that we don't get along. I'm afraid I don't care if that offends your empty, artificial sensibilities.

I'd like to leave you with a question, though, since you claim you exemplify non-violence: why is violence not an appropriate response to an evil person who is intent on inflicting violence on you? Can you answer that? EDIT: Understand that this is a deep question, and won't be satisfied with a shallow answer.

vision wrote:


All I read here is the continual celebration of violence (yeah, look how awesome this guy is, he shot the bad guy! guns are awesome!). Makes me sick.

Who here has ever said shooting someone in defense of their home or lives was awesome?

vision wrote: I would never own a gun because I would never use it under any circumstances. I can't see Jesus or a Buddha doing it, likewise I can't see myself doing it.

You would do so if your mother or little sister's live were being threatened. If not you'd be a pretty useless person.

vision wrote:..
Except this is exactly where the topic of non-violence should be brought up. If you really want guns for protection against violence, you should make it clear that you would never harm another person. ...

That makes no sense.
A smart person wouldn't expect a gun to scare the threat away and would understand that someone will be hurt if the gun is used. If you don't think you could hurt someone with a gun in defense then you certainly shouldn't have one for that purpose!

And I think you are being quite melodramatic and self righteous with the whole Jesus wouldn't and so neither would I BS and trying to say people here are celebrating violence etc. you are really projecting the prejudices you have towards gun owners with that nonsense.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'd like to leave you with a question, though, since you claim you exemplify non-violence: why is violence not an appropriate response to an evil person who is intent on inflicting violence on you? Can you answer that? EDIT: Understand that this is a deep question, and won't be satisfied with a shallow answer.

woodchip wrote:You would do so if your mother or little sister's live were being threatened. If not you'd be a pretty useless person.

I would not harm another human being for any reason. Any. You cannot make the world a less violent place with more violence. The right course of action is always to avoid violence at all costs, to use diplomacy only, and as a last resort, non-violent restraint. I cannot justify taking the life of another human being to save the life of one close to me. I can not even justify killing animals in the same situation. I've taken a personal vow to reduce the suffering of all sentient beings and I will stick to it no matter what. If you think it is useless to devote my life to the reduction of suffering, then you should think deeply about what is truly useful.

vision wrote:... You cannot make the world a less violent place with more violence. ....

That is factually incorrect.
You might not see a value in stopping or reducing violence by using violence to force that result but it clearly can be done and has been done in the past and is in practice successfully today. Many lives have been saved by the use of violence. That is reality.

I respect your choice to be passive, if everyone made that choice life would be better for all.
However, I've wondered at the logic behind some of your positions on different issues in the past and today you are showing me fundamental flaws in what you claim to believe.
Recognizing and accepting reality is important. When you are taking part in affecting the freedoms of others and you do so without recognizing reality you are likely harming them...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think you're jumping a few rungs beyond your grasp there, TC. The first question is, does the nature of a society contribute to the amount of insanity which crops up in that society. I would go a rung or two past that myself, because I believe it does.

Why is that? Every society has it's share of psychopaths. Mental illness can strike anyone. Sure, some are made by conditions and actions in life and society, but many are victims of a mental illness that they didn't ask for. Whatever the cause, they're a danger that has to be dealt with on some level. Does it matter how they're made? My question is valid. What do you DO to solve the problem? Notwithstanding a violent society that creates it's own monsters, we can't even afford to give mental health care to those who are truly just plain mentally ill. There's really nothing in place to deal with mental illness reliably or compassionately. There's NO money, period. Medical science doesn't even have very good treatments for those who suffer from the worse mental illnesses either. Oh, we can drug them up, but it's not a permanent solution because someone will have to make sure that they stay on that medication. Most of the time, they quit the drugs and end up on the street and cause more crime. Then I guess we have throw them in jail. That's where most of them end up now anyway, so we still pay to warehouse them.

Will Robinson wrote:That is factually incorrect.
You might not see a value in stopping or reducing violence by using violence to force that result but it clearly can be done and has been done in the past and is in practice successfully today.

Oh, it's been done in the past, because it usually kills off all the ones doing the violence. Problem solved. But the issue is, more are always in the pipeline. All societies have their demons..........or end up making more of them.

Will Robinson wrote:That is factually incorrect.

Prove it with facts please.

tunnelcat wrote:Mental illness can strike anyone.

How do you know? In that general statement you're denying the existence of any specific conditions which may be the reason why X% of people are not mentally ill.

tunnelcat wrote:Does it matter how they're made? My question is valid.

Absolutely it does, if you're talking about how to deal with it. It's the difference between adequately addressing a problem, and merely carting off society's ideological casualties to process them in the most efficient manner without ever addressing the cause and so ebbing the flow! You're talking about condemning people who's lives are already being destroyed by insanity. There is certainly a cause, somewhere in there. Why should we believe there is no prevention or cure?

You can't address what you don't understand.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'd like to leave you with a question, though, since you claim you exemplify non-violence: why is violence not an appropriate response to an evil person who is intent on inflicting violence on you? Can you answer that? EDIT: Understand that this is a deep question, and won't be satisfied with a shallow answer.

I would not harm another human being for any reason. Any. You cannot make the world a less violent place with more violence. The right course of action is always to avoid violence at all costs, to use diplomacy only, and as a last resort, non-violent restraint. I cannot justify taking the life of another human being to save the life of one close to me. I can not even justify killing animals in the same situation. I've taken a personal vow to reduce the suffering of all sentient beings and I will stick to it no matter what. If you think it is useless to devote my life to the reduction of suffering, then you should think deeply about what is truly useful.

Still waiting on a specific answer to my question.

So you've bought into some Buddhist ideology. That tells me that you don't understand the subject in any depth--you don't need to, you've just accepted the idea of absolute non-violence. I always expected it was something along those lines.

That is such a farce. If you haven't already shut your ears, just hear me out on this: it is justice, not the absence of suffering that is the highest ideal in this world. The only time (and it may be more often than not) that violence is "not the answer" is when in a specific situation violence cannot or does not affect justice. You have people dealing with each-other, and one does another injustice, who reacts emotionally and an additional injustice is done back, and on and on. When a man has taken it upon himself to unjustly cause harm to you or your family, there is a consideration of not offending justice in your response. It would be unjust to kill the man and his family, for instance. However, self-defense, in its most basic form, is nothing but a response calculated to thwart the infliction of harm. Self-defense returns a situation that has been thrown out of balance to a state of justice! There is the consideration of excessive force: legally speaking, excessive force could be excused, because it is difficult to determine if the excessive force hails from ill/unjust intent or merely lack of discipline or overreaction (self-defense is not something we are all expert at), but since the attacker initiated the imbalance, the victim is given the benefit of the doubt. Jesus did not throw all of this aside--the message of the Bible is not equivalent to Buddhist non-violence. The purpose of mercy over justice, under the new covenant in the New Testament is not the denial or disposal of justice, but rather the purposeful deferment of justice to God's final judgment, to be judged or covered/washed at the culmination of the gospel, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, and for the ultimate salvation of everyone, no matter how out of balance with justice. God had mercy on those who are now Christians, causing Christians to be indebted to follow this example, and to defer justice for the purpose of salvation, in mercy. Outside of this, however, it is still true that the only remedy for violent injustice is violence. Justice and judgment still exist, but as the Bible says, "mercy triumphs over judgment"--that is God's plan--to allow injustice to exist against his people for a time, so that it cannot prevent sinners from being saved. In the end, however, those who are not cover by the blood of Jesus Christ and forgiven because He paid the price for sin, are in for one hell of a reckoning. (pun not intended, but very accurate)

I could pick apart your statement up there, which is full of logical errors, but let this answer to Buddhism suffice.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:That is factually incorrect.

Prove it with facts please.

Have you ever heard of World War II?

The level of violence dropped incredibly after having risen to a record peak that was going on for years. The tipping point was the application of the right amount of violence in a series of strategic locations.

Or, did you hear about the murderer who kidnapped a 5 year old from his school bus in Alabama last week?

If you follow the exploits of the ex cop on a murder spree in California right now it will most likely end by way of violence at the hands of men who go into harms way daily and use violence as a last resort to stop violence. They often die trying to determine when they have exhausted all nonviolent responses. That example is about as passive as we as a society are willing to be. We ask our protectors to capture the murderers alive if possible...that is compassion governed by survival. That is sensible, more so than lighting yourself on fire in protest.

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.

Will Robinson wrote: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.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: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.
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.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'd like to leave you with a question, though, since you claim you exemplify non-violence: why is violence not an appropriate response to an evil person who is intent on inflicting violence on you? Can you answer that?

I did answer it, but I'll say it slowly for you. You cannot make the world a less violent place by engaging in violence. Otherwise you are just shuffling violent acts around. I don't believe anyone is evil, but some engage in evil acts due to a misunderstanding of the world around them. Everyone who is considered a criminal deserves the chance for rehabilitation (thus I'm against capital punishment, which removes that option). Avoidance, negotiation, and restraint are the countermeasures to violence.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That is such a farce. If you haven't already shut your ears, just hear me out on this: it is justice, not the absence of suffering that is the highest ideal in this world.

Maybe that's why everyone keeps fighting? Justice and retribution? Sounds like a wheel that will spin forever. I'll chose differently, thanks.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...as the Bible says, "mercy triumphs over judgment"--that is God's plan--to allow injustice to exist against his people for a time, so that it cannot prevent sinners from being saved.

Your arguments would be better if you didn't resort to quoting mythology and fiction.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I could pick apart your statement up there, which is full of logical errors, but let this answer to Buddhism suffice.

I think maybe you don't understand what Buddhism is, but I can't blame you. It's pretty heavy stuff and the religious aspects are a byproduct of Hinduism, which makes it all very messy to someone who hasn't made a serious study of either.

Will Robinson wrote:Have you ever heard of World War II?

World War what? Is the world less violent because of wars? Has the existence or increase in violence solved any problems in the Middle East, especially between Israel and Palestine? Sorry to burst your bubble, but isolated incidences of "controlled" violence do not make the world less violent. The things that reduce violence in the world are education, secularism, equal rights, medicine, and improved living standards -- not violence. This is all documented in Steven Pinker's voluminous work "The Better Angels of Our Nature" backed up with data complied by dozens of researchers covering basically the entire timescale of civilization. Here's a video if you want to watch.


As a side note, I don't understand why all the holy people here are so afraid of bad guys with guns. I mean, if someone kills you, don't you just go right to Heaven anyway? Seems like the atheists should be the ones who are afraid of violence and death -- they only have one life!

Yea, and on that note, I find it very difficult to figure out who is more scared, those who want guns to protect themselves, or those who want to remove guns from people who want to defend themselves.

People on your side of the issue show all of the signs of fear…so don’t go getting on any high horse.

Vision, violence is a tool sometimes used to enforce order. The 'quality' of the order created may not be to your liking and certainly the state of order isn't violence free or a permanent change but it is usually much less violent overall than the lack of order.

You can point out places that have more violence than others but that is not proof that the threat of violence, to be delivered by authority to maintain order, doesn't reduce the incidents of violence, or overall level of violence, during the time that threat is used.

Without a society creating an authority to create order we would have anarchy and that would create oppression and constant violence as the 'new order' that results from letting anarchy find its natural course would be based solely on the whims of who ever has the ability to deliver greater violence than their challengers. Tyrants and kings and warlords and ayatollahs etc

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

You're delusional, vision. Clearly. You also didn't even scrape the surface of the kind of detail I was asking for in the question I posed. I asked for an answer, and you gave me a couple of one-liners. Since that's all I've seen from you so far, I assume that the complexity necessary to support the conclusions you espouse is found only in your imagination.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...as the Bible says, "mercy triumphs over judgment"--that is God's plan--to allow injustice to exist against his people for a time, so that it cannot prevent sinners from being saved.

Your arguments would be better if you didn't resort to quoting mythology and fiction.

Vision, you dumbass. Nothing out of you has been founded in anything even remotely logical or provable. What I was saying here was directly addressing your claims a few posts ago to following the example of Jesus, where you tried to equate Jesus and Buddha.

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.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: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.

woodchip wrote: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?

I wouldn't worry too much about Vision. My old friend Frank told me they were always the first. Put his butt in a ditch with a firearm and he will fire.