HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TPaine7 » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Apr 12, 2008, 03:28 PM
Number of posts: 4,286

Journal Archives

Your loyalty to violent felons is impressive

What are you suggesting, that she attend at the clinic being picketed and open fire?

As far as I can tell, you are.

Yes, I guess that would be the analogy I presented--at least under the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field, where you live--and there is no craven sophistry, BS or bald-faced lying taking place when you make that statement. That's really sad. The Field has shown you no mercy.

Women are not assaulted because of their manner of dress. That's just an old husband's tale you've accidentally swallowed, I guess.

Women are assaulted because they are women, by men with the desire and opportunity to do it. You might want to read up on this some.

Ok, I get it. If twins go out in a rough area--one with a skintight micro skirt and no panties the other in a nun's habit--they are equally likely to get raped. OK.

I am vaguely familiar with some feminist theory. Some of it--equal pay for equal work, equal rights and responsibilities--I believe in. Some of it--"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin), there is no relationship between provocative dress and the risk of rape--I don't buy. The twins in my example above, though equally women--down to the genetic level, even--are not equally likely to be be raped. And a loving man whose wife repeatedly asks him for sex is not engaging in a "pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt" when he makes love to her.

Forget that example, iverglas. What about a Jew who continues jogging every morning before work--even after the skinheads move into the neighborhood? Does your "principle" apply to him?

One does not get to assume a risk that could have been avoided and transfer the resulting harm to someone else. Basic rule of stuff.


walk alone in deserted parking lots late at night
live in dangerous neighbourhoods
publish incitements to hatred

etc. etc.

If you do those things, even though you have the choice not to, then killing someone when the risk you could have avoided materializes makes you a dangerous asshole.

So the Jew, who refuses to knuckle under to fear and change his daily routine because some skinheads moved in, is a dangerous asshole?

Bullshit. He is perfectly entitled to jog when and where he pleases, and not to rearrange his life. Society should not rearrange itself to suit felonious thugs, racists, rapists, armed robbers, etc., nor is any person morally or legally obligated to rearrange his life. And if, while doing something that person has a perfect right to do--or being somewhere that person has a perfect right to be--they are obligated to use potentially deadly force in self-defense, they have a perfect right to do so.

And that is so, even if it leads to the death of every single violent racist, rapist, armed robber, violent religious extremist, kidnapper and murderer on earth. It is better that they all die that that one single person be obligated, morally or legally, to sacrifice his rights.

That is one of the great divides. Who should be repressed, forced into the shadows, and have the onus of yielding to the other--violent felons or law abiding people? I say felons. You disagree.

It is murder. Murder most foul.

Those men had the best of intentions. They were, we may be sure, only there for stuff.

In civilized society, we must assume that two men, armed with a rifle and invading a home, are model citizens. No one knows what would have happened had the homeowner not recklessly escalated the situation and resorted to violence. To assume ill intent on the part of armed home invaders is barbaric.

The gentlemen (we mustn't use derogatory terms like "goblin"--that's just dehumanizing) had probably just been hunting or target shooting and got confused trying to make it to a friend's house.

The homeowner, on the other hand, sounds like a lunatic. He lived in a "residential neighborhood" where "violent crime is rare"--so what was he doing with a gun?!!! It stinks of paranoia and right wing douchbaggery.

And if that's not suspicious enough, he "works at a laboratory" and "is pursuing a doctoral degree in biomedical engineering." He's one of those people who advertises falsely--the neighbors were surprised that he had a gun or that he was capable of handling one. That's entrapment--looking all geeky and intellectual, then dropping the hammer on those fine gentlemen!

To paranoia and entrapment, we must add cowardice and probably inadequacy--if you know what I mean. What was he compensating for with that shotgun? And why was he afraid to take on two armed men in hand to rifle combat? I've seen an 89 lb anorexic teenaged girl make two Navy Seals cry using just pressure points and some martial arts techniques she learned on the internet. And the Seals had full battle gear, including submachineguns. Whats wrong with this wimp?

Lastly, this guy was obviously bloodthirsty. Instead of a friendly greeting, or even a polite request that his guests leave, he jumps right to lethal force. He kills one gentlemen and forces the other one to resort to REAL, LEGITIMATE self-defense. The thing to do would have been to lay down his shotgun (or not have picked it up in the first place), ask the men to leave, ask for mercy, pray for the best, and if it came to it, beg for a quick and merciful death. That's how they do it in Canada and England--civilized.

I'm starting a legal fund to help the surviving home invader sue this bastard. Won't you make a donation? Dial 1 900 U R AN ASS to donate.

If we raise enough money, maybe the Brady Campaign, MMM, MAIG and VPC will join the cause. Someone has to stand up for civilization. Do it for the children!

So much BS, I actually didn't catch it all earlier.

Now, how does it mesh with the belief system that goes:

Better the odd child should be killed by a stray bullet than that I should be restrained in any way in the exercise of my rights as I interpret them.


I guess it meshes like these beliefs do:

Better the odd person should die than that I should be restrained in any way in the exercise of my free speech as I interpret it.

Better the odd child should die than that my right to not be tortured in police interrogation should be violated in an effort to catch a serial killer.

Better the odd child should be molested than that parents and children should be subject to random inspections at all hours of the day and night including body cavity searches.

or even...

Better the many families (or at least numbers equivalent to 28 families of 4*) should die daily rather than the speed limit be lowered to 15 mph.

...which doesn't even involve a right.

Of course, all people with an adult understanding of rights (and even conveniences) realize that there are payoffs in terms of lives. I daresay that there is no freedom, and few if any conveniences, that do not cost lives.

According to your own logic, the mother and child in this this OP would be acceptable collateral damage. In fact by your logic you intend that the mother and child should have been at the mercy of the two thugs--or should I say "gentlemen" lest you spring to their defense?--who attacked her. (I show my work in post 28.)

The funny thing is that you agree with the basic principle yourself. You think it better that the odd child die rather than that you be subject to violations of your rights as you see them. It couldn't be any other way. In fact, I daresay that you would rather the odd child die than you be constrained to drive no faster than 15 mph (24 km/h), though driving over 15 mph is not a Canadian or fundamental human right. And we're talking LOTS of odd children.

So your horror at the idea that some must die so that people can have the means to protect themselves and their families is unique. It doesn't apply to any other comparable area of life. It doesn't even apply to speed limits, never mind to life saving technologies.

Without your premise--the RKBA is illegitimate, uncivilized and weird--your argument falls apart and it becomes impossible to prove your conclusion--the RKBA is illegitimate, uncivilized and weird.

(And I do this on the understanding that linking to posts by people who may not be present in a thread, as Master Paine did to me earlier this week, is permissible in this brave new DU; in this case, of course, I do it not to attack any individual, but to offer samples of popular thought)

Why don't you quote me? Quote me, in a thread that you hadn't participated in, linking to a post of yours. Or withdraw your false allegation, as you love to admonish others.

I read that belief system as:

However, if you want to bet a life on such chances--if that is required by your belief system--feel free. Just make sure that the life is someone else's. It's that simple.

I bet you do. The Gun Control Reality Distortion Field has shown you no mercy.

And I read your failure ever to challenge it as ... well, as agreement with it, to stick with an objective assessment of the facts.

Challenge it? Challenge it!!!

That's funny, iverglas. There's nothing to challenge. It's so simple-minded as to be self-refuting. But you read it as agreement if you must. Whatever the Field requires, I guess...

Depending on where and how you live, you bet your life on the performance of others thousands of times a day. You depend on the teams that designed equipment you use, the engineer who designed the bridge you drive across, the people who operate your public transit, the people driving the cars around you, the people who operate heavy equipment, the people who treat your water... and on and on. If any of them screw up, you could die or face serious bodily injury.

Some of them are highly educated and trained. Some are not. Some work for the government. Some don't. Some are licensed--like the testosterone-laden teenager who just became a legal driver. Some are not. A great many of them, including the teenager, operate equipment much more difficult to safely manage than a gun.

If you don't like betting your life and well being on these people, your only option is to get a cabin in the woods and live like the Unabomber. You certainly don't get to make them all stop doing the things that they are doing simply because they have the potential to endanger you.

But you and your friends (and note that I am not talking about the public carrying of firearms here, I am talking about the entire agenda in respect of firearms regulation) have some right to require that other people bet their lives on your ... well, I won't dignify them by calling them beliefs: demands; whims; claims ...

Your contempt for America and her legal traditions notwithstanding, our right to keep and bear arms is way above your power to "dignify." There is a right to self-defense, in spite of your disagreement with the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States of America. And the right to the end is useless without the right to the means.

The sovereign nation of the United States of America has codified in the supreme law of the land the fact that its people have a right to keep and bear arms. We have not consulted Canada or Europe, nor will we.


I think I understand what Nuclear Unicorn is talking about, iverglas

In fact, to quote you, it's one "of those really simple obvious things."

First the premise:

52. one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions

If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.

One of those really simple obvious things.

No one had alerted the authorities? To what?

There was an investigation relating to his mental status that was ongoing at the time in connection with a custody dispute.

I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn. Anybody want to start?

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11725687#post52

Now I think you will recall that the government of the District of Columbia (along with the Brady Campaign who gave them a higher gun control rating than any state in the nation and supported their laws, the law professors who supported their laws, and many anti-gun activists) were against people having any loaded gun in their homes. They wanted to ensure that guns were unloaded--or better yet, disassembled--and separated from ammunition.

DC defeated a defendant who raised the defense that while under attack a person could load a gun in spite of the law. DC had legal precedent that you could not load a gun even if you or your family was under lethal attack, being beaten, kidnapped, tortured or raped. Loading a gun in one's home was forbidden. Period.

If you have forgotten, I've posted on it before. Here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170607

As I recall, you did not advocate any measures to prevent victims being disarmed in the face of violent criminal attack. Did I miss that post?

Your principle:

one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions

If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.

One of those really simple obvious things.

Your Principle Applied:

one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions

If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like her from being legally disarmed in the face of violent attack, one advocates her and them being left defenseless.

One of those really simple obvious things.

Of course, DC and those who supported its laws went far beyond not advocating measures to prevent this individual and people like her from being legally disarmed in the face of violent attack. They went so far as to actually advocate that she be disarmed, even if her baby was being harmed in front of her.

They, and their fellow gun control travelers in Canada and Europe should be especially harshly condemned by your principle. After all, they don't merely fail to advocate against the harm; they directly advocate for it!

I take it these things are only "really simple and obvious" when they support gun control, right?
Go to Page: 1