|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 30 40 ... 51 52 53 54 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted July 16, 2013 06:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
they are for militia purposes, to protect against a corrupt government from doing whatever they want, personally, to you and your family, as well as your country
fred, you've been in the army, right? Can you please explain how an assault rifle or even a machine gun can help you against a tank?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 08:44 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:52, 16 Jul 2013.
|
@Salamandre
Salamandre said:
Elodin said:
And Martin was high on weed, had a history of using weed, had stolen jewelry in his backpack and had pictures of himself flashing gang signs and with handguns.
At least have the decency to relate the truth, not your usual propaganda:
.... You lie......You lie.
I'm not falling for your provocation but calling me a liar is unacceptable.
Quote:
High on weed: the quantity found was minimal and could have been smoked weeks before. Experts said they were uncertain about the effects on Martin and the evidence of drug use was not admissible in court. You lie.
You are wrong. The medical expert who did the autopsy says otherwise.
Clicky
Quote:
"We know the level of THC in his body is enough to cause some level of impairment," Don West, one of Mr Zimmerman's lawyers, argued before the judge's ruling.
Dr Shiping Bao, the medical examiner who carried out Trayvon's autopsy, told the court last week that he had changed his mind about the drug's potential impact, having initially said it was too small an amount to be significant. "Marijuana could have no effect or some effect," he said.
Quote:
Stolen jewelry in backpack: it was 2 years ago (2011), in his backpack at school, and he was not prosecuted because police found out that the jewelry did not match any that had been reported stolen. You lie.
No, I did not lie. My sentence construction was not good in distinguishing the events. But the jewelry was stolen (watches, wedding bands, earrings, and diamonds) and he had a "burglary tool" as well.
Clicky
Quote:
Pictures of him with guns: kinda ironic, when we know he was killed by a gun trigger happy. Aren't you people considering legalized guns as a constitutive right? So he is guilty because?
No, we don't "know he was killed by a gun trigger happy."
Shooting someone who is on bending over you after they punched you down is not being gun happy.
Martin was a criminal and a gansta wanna-be and died a gangsta death.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 09:09 AM |
|
|
Let's try it again. Elodin phrase:
"And Martin was high on weed, had a history of using weed, had stolen jewelry in his backpack and had pictures of himself flashing gang signs and with handguns."
Did he have jewelry in HIS backpack? No, is a lie. Where does in your article say that he stole jewelry? Nowhere, you stop the article quote where it fits you and it is from 2011. Was the drug level used in court? No, because too little, so why you bring it here and saying "was high on"? Is a lie too. And about your last argument, when an armed guy is following you on the street, it is your right to stand your ground, no? Who initiated the fight, the guy making his way or the guy following him while armed to teeth? Eh?
Ironically you hope that Zimmerman will sue the media because they staged his phone call but you are doing exactly same thing here, pile a bunch of irrelevant facts, ignore some, invent others, and throw them as the proof, just to match your bloody satisfaction that a "gangsta" was annihilated. The fact that Zimmerman was freed just proves that there were not enough elements to incriminate him, not that morally he is innocent. He took an awful decision and will have to live with.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 11:39 AM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:16 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:28, 16 Jul 2013.
|
Quote:
It's a large set, but not an infinite one. Unless you want to be pedantic and count things like "move your finger to the left 1 cm" and "move your finger to the left 1.0001 cm" as separate freedoms, in which case it would be an infinite set.
Ah mvass ahh, again lost in the technicalities.. The ironic part is you get lost in logic because your logical skills are actually quite good. That wasn't what I meant.
Take any country including yours, if you look close enough you will see that, there are always restrictions beyond "not doing harm to others." They all have emergency precautions that can suspend or even cancel your rights to begin with but that's a little off-topic now. You will also see that what is meant by doing harm to others is not as agreed upon as you think it is. 80 year-old Goethe openly wrote love poems to a 15 year old girl in the 18th century, which is considered pedophilia and harmful today. But is there an actual concrete harm? No, it's just a commonly accepted interpretation of psychology. Anyway, the important part is, while some of those restrictions exist because of historical traditions and prejudices that are no longer valid and should be removed, some of them exist though, because with experience, each society somehow figures out that freedom is not absolute and it can not be achieved even partially if there is not a level of stability and each of them has different laws that restrict this or that, saying it's the price of keeping things running healthy. Freedom is not an advertisement slogan on TV, it has content, you should look how it is practiced in real life before chanting it here and there. Gun ownership in the scale of heavy assault rifles, certainly isn't something necessary or crucial to be considered a freedom if canceled, will damage the basic principles of democracy, (only Americans claim that which indicates it's quite cultural actually), it wont help you at all fighting the military or the government in this age unless you're living in fantasyland, it is not a central question of freedom no more than owning nerve gas is. If we had a state allowing its citizens ownership of chemical weapons, would your reaction be "wow,look how beautiful that is, what a free country!" The way you 2D the concept, it should be. And let me ask you another thing, you may believe in the freedom to smoke, but if we had a society in which half of the people smoked 5 packs a day, you wouldn't be discussing the issue under the title "freedom to smoke" now, would you?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 03:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Take any country including yours, if you look close enough you will see that, there are always restrictions beyond "not doing harm to others."
You don't have to look very close to see them. The US is far from perfect, and I'm not defending its status quo. All I'm saying is that in this particular aspect, Americans are freer than citizens of European countries.Quote:
80 year-old Goethe openly wrote love poems to a 15 year old girl in the 18th century, which is considered pedophilia and harmful today. But is there an actual concrete harm?
No, which is why the modern perception is wrong. As long as it's just letters, it's really no different from the advertisements you regularly receive in your mailbox. Yes, what's harmful isn't always agreed upon, but reasonable people can talk to each other about it and reach an agreement.
Freedom isn't a slogan. As I said earlier, it's the ability to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. The real life effect is, unsurprisingly, being able to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. That's a good effect. Gun ownership isn't necessary for life, but legal gun ownership is necessary for freedom. It has nothing to do with democracy (which is often an enemy of freedom). I never said anything about fighting the military - even with assault rifles, it's not possible.Quote:
let me ask you another thing, you may believe in the freedom to smoke, but if we had a society in which half of the people smoked 5 packs a day, you wouldn't be discussing the issue under the title "freedom to smoke" now, would you?
If people were talking about banning smoking, then yes, I would be talking about the freedom to smoke. However, the freedom to smoke derives from self-ownership (as all freedoms do), and only means that you have the right to poison yourself, not that you have the right to subject others to secondhand smoke. I would (and do) oppose smoking at the same time as I support the freedom to smoke. Just because you are free to do something does not mean you should do it. If it were commonplace for people to blow their paycheck on toothpicks - for some bizarre reason, buying millions of toothpicks every month - I would defend their freedom to do so at the same time as I would be actively counsel them against actually doing it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 04:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom isn't a slogan. As I said earlier, it's the ability to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others.
And as I said earlier, that is just an idealistic generalization that actually refers to nothing. What you can practice counts, and when we talk about what we can practice, society is always a factor, not as a factor that determines what's right as the conservatives think, but you should be able to preserve a society that people feel happy to belong to, individualism is just one side of the coin, vast majority of humans won't feel happy all by themselves, we are social creatures.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with democracy (which is often an enemy of freedom).
Well, I assume you're not suggesting monarchy or oligarchy or communism instead of it, so where is your freedom practiced? Jungle law, the noble savage of Jean Jacques Rousseau? Do you seriously believe people living out of civilization can have more freedom and options than people living in a democracy? See how "out of life" you speak again?
Quote:
Gun ownership isn't necessary for life, but legal gun ownership is necessary for freedom.
I repeat my question, does that apply to nerve gas, nuclear weapons? Why not? I just demand my right to own them, I wont use them on innocents. What if a zombie epidemic or an alien invasion shows up, I have the right to believe that and I want to keep a nuke in the basement, just in case.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
individualism is just one side of the coin, vast majority of humans won't feel happy all by themselves, we are social creatures.
How does individualism conflict with being a social creature? Of course humans are social - it's why they derive such a huge benefit from friendship, romantic relationships, and less personal forms of cooperation. Individualism doesn't mean living on an island, never talking to people, etc, it means self-ownership and freedom of association. It means that no one has a claim on me unless I voluntarily agree that they do, and that no one can restrict my activities unless I'm harming them.Quote:
I assume you're not suggesting monarchy or oligarchy or communism instead of it, so where is your freedom practiced?
Democracy is the best way I know of to manage oversight of the government. For example, if someone is abusing their power, democracy is a good way of removing them. However, there is managerial democracy, in which people are voted on, and then there's the kind of democracy where the principles are also up for vote - and that's the kind of democracy I'm opposed to. A good democracy is one in which there is a strict set of principles that cannot be changed (something like the US Constitution, but even more strict) even by popular vote, and officials are elected to pass laws based on that Constitution and enforce them.Quote:
does that apply to nerve gas, nuclear weapons?
Yes, as long as if you use them, you only use them in self-defense and don't cause collateral damage - which, at least in the case of nuclear weapons, usually means that you don't use them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 04:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How does individualism conflict with being a social creature?
Look at the context: Look at the level of idealistic (the philosophical term to be clear) freedom you defend and look at every real society that had walked the face of planet earth.
artu said:
does that apply to nerve gas, nuclear weapons?
mvass said:
Yes, as long as if you use them, you only use them in self-defense and don't cause collateral damage - which, at least in the case of nuclear weapons, usually means that you don't use them.
To carry a principle to the absolute (idealism again), you will print a golden invitation to any disaster. (That's not how freedom is achieved btw, that's usually how dictators are born). Anyway, good luck with that, I'm going back to the aforementioned planet.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 05:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Look at the context: Look at the level of idealistic (the philosophical term to be clear) freedom you defend and look at every real society that had walked the face of planet earth.
"It's never been done before, therefore it's bad" is a fallacious argument, if that's the argument you're making. A century and a half ago, people would have said that no one has ever let women vote. There's a reason why governments don't let people have the level of freedom I'm talking about - it's not because they're looking out for the best interests of the governed, but because those who have power like to use it and keep it. Part of it may be that power corrupts, but more of it is because morally corrupt people (both of the gangster type and moral busybodies who want to enact their will by force) are the ones who successfully obtain power. Part of the blame lies with the structure of (non-managerial) democracy, in which people can vote to take away others' freedom simply because they find them distasteful, or because voters think they're owed something.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 05:21 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:30, 16 Jul 2013.
|
But my reason is not that it's never done before or there is a certain way to do things like the conservatives. I already elaborated that in my earlier post. The way you read the arguments is just like the way you listen to music. Instead of looking at the contextual whole, you see a line of statements, hence always looking for logical loopholes to hop in. You know the Chuck Berry song You Can't Catch Me, it's just like two or three minutes 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 05:38 PM |
|
|
You can blow someone's brains out in US, but I can legally download movies and music in Poorland from teh internet - guess which is more useful in life? 
I'll take my freedom over yours, thank you 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 06:00 PM |
|
|
artu:
You said that "what you can practice" is a factor, but that's a vague statement. If the law allows an action in a certain context and some private entity is preventing more from performing it, the legal system should intervene and allow me to perform the action. For example, if a woman wants to go outside but her husband physically restrains her when she tries to, if she alters the police, there are ample grounds for legal intervention. You also said that "you should be able to preserve a society that people feel happy to belong to" - what if people want to belong to a racist society like the traditional American south? Lynching Negroes, or, earlier, slavery. Unless you're coming around to my view of objective causes of human happiness.
DF:
They're not mutually exclusive. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 06:03 PM |
|
|
Sure they ain't, my point was that I take no guns over RIAA on my back 
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 06:34 PM |
|
|
DF, there is a difference between control nonexistence or laws not yet defined and "legally". What you do is certainly not legal, is just that Poorland is slow to put those laws in place, such things are expensive.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2013 11:18 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
DF, there is a difference between control nonexistence or laws not yet defined and "legally". What you do is certainly not legal, is just that Poorland is slow to put those laws in place, such things are expensive.
it actually is 100% legal here, trust me (the law has been formed in 1995 and then re-formed in 2005 - it strictly prohibits uploading, but allows downloading for personal use, believe it or not ). But it is kinda off topic, so I'll dump the subject for now.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 06:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
All I'm saying is that in this particular aspect, Americans are freer than citizens of European countries.
And that's because? If you make a survey among most of the Europeans about whether they feel more... hm, oppressed or "unfree" than the Americans, I seriously doubt that you'll get many "yes" answers.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 06:36 AM |
|
|
That doesn't mean much, because you can have your freedom restricted without feeling oppressed. I don't feel oppressed for knowing that I can't legally smoke marijuana, but I'm still less free for it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 07:09 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
That doesn't mean much, because you can have your freedom restricted without feeling oppressed. I don't feel oppressed for knowing that I can't legally smoke marijuana, but I'm still less free for it.
That's the logic, Mvass. 
Let me get this straight. You do not feel oppressed for knowing that your government feels fit to forbid everyone to make use of naturally growing plants, that may be one of the most useful and important gifts of mother nature - see Cannabis , especially the articles about medical and industrial use as well as history -, criminalizing you for it, while lying to you about the effects and dangers, and you feel more free than the people in Europe because your government allows everyone to buy an unlimited supply of tools whose only purpose is to kill and maim, the reasoning being, since everyone HAS the freedom to buy an overkill power to kill and maim you need to have the freedom to buy you that power as well, because you might be forced to defend the rest of your freedom against other people's freedom to use their power against you, your government NOT criminalizing you for it, while lying to you about the effects and dangers as well.
I say, they seem to do a good job over there to teach you people what is really dangerous for whom and how to make use of your freedom in the most sensible way.
I mean - isn't everything the weapon lobby is claiming to be valid for free production and ownership of weapons also true for free ownership and production of drugs?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 10:06 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
That doesn't mean much, because you can have your freedom restricted without feeling oppressed. I don't feel oppressed for knowing that I can't legally smoke marijuana, but I'm still less free for it.
Are you also less free for not being able to walk on the moon like Neil Armstrong?
|
| |
|
|
