In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[Winchester]

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.

 

Cigarettes pose a serious health risk. You should read more about raw milk. If you feel it's acceptable to confiscate it at gunpoint, and to throw people in cages for selling it, I'm afraid we're so far apart in what we view as acceptable use of violence that we cannot agree.

 

A law that has not the character of justice is no law.

 

My argument about the hatchet is not based on it being innocuous. I provide the basis of the argument. Reread and respond appropriately.

 

Police use AR15's in raids against suspects operating alone. Obviously, such weapons are desirable for small scale operations.

 

"Inherent" must have a different meaning, for you.

 

It's civilized to set up a classed society. Got it.

[Kevin]

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.

 

"Getting people the help they desperately need" is awfully easy to interpret as "Anyone with Aspergers needs to be thrown into an asylum." I was a substitute teacher and I worked with students with some very nasty behavior issues, but never did I meet one so far gone that he was, as was suggested above, certain to kill someone, as if he had lost the capacity for free will already

 

By all reports Adam Lanza was quiet and reclusive - but so are monks, yet we don't lock them up. I strongly suggest you read Chesteron's The Madman to get some perspective on the dangers of the path you are urging society to take.

[Winchester]

There are varying opinions on raw milk. I'm against assaulting people over the matter.

 

http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/

[Lil Red]

"Getting people the help they desperately need" is awfully easy to interpret as "Anyone with Aspergers needs to be thrown into an asylum."

 

:twitch: :doh:

[Kevin]

Cigarettes pose a serious health risk. You should read more about raw milk. If you feel it's acceptable to confiscate it at gunpoint, and to throw people in cages for selling it, I'm afraid we're so far apart in what we view as acceptable use of violence that we cannot agree.

 

A law that has not the character of justice is no law.

 

My argument about the hatchet is not based on it being innocuous. I provide the basis of the argument. Reread and respond appropriately.

 

Police use AR15's in raids against suspects operating alone. Obviously, such weapons are desirable for small scale operations.

 

"Inherent" must have a different meaning, for you.

 

It's civilized to set up a classed society. Got it.

 

People don't give cigarette to children. But you haven't even brought any evidence that what you are saying even happened. If excessive force was used, those doing it should be punished, but those who refuse to live according to the laws of this country are justly arrested and tried.

 

You said "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." What I am saying is that there definitely are some items with potential uses that make it unacceptable for your neighbor to own, and your neighbor can be legitimately compelled to relinquish it. A bomb, for example. In this case, you would naturally call the police, but they are acting as your proxy. And even in this case, violence would not be offered immediately, but only in the case of non-compliance with a legitimate request.

 

Tell me when the last time a police officer, rather than a private gun owner, charged into a school and or movie theater and killed as many people as he could?

[Lil Red]

how about someone in the military, say, shooting up a military base?

[kujo]

...By all reports Adam Lanza was quiet and reclusive - but so are monks, yet we don't lock them up...

 

 

If we can't get the props back, can we please institute some sort of Stupidest Post of the Day award?

[Lil Red]

If we can't get the props back, can we please institute some sort of Stupidest Post of the Day award?

 

i :love: you.

[Winchester]

People don't give cigarette to children. But you haven't even brought any evidence that what you are saying even happened. If excessive force was used, those doing it should be punished, but those who refuse to live according to the laws of this country are justly arrested and tried.

 

You said "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." What I am saying is that there definitely are some items with potential uses that make it unacceptable for your neighbor to own, and your neighbor can be legitimately compelled to relinquish it. A bomb, for example. In this case, you would naturally call the police, but they are acting as your proxy. And even in this case, violence would not be offered immediately, but only in the case of non-compliance with a legitimate request.

 

Tell me when the last time a police officer, rather than a private gun owner, charged into a school and or movie theater and killed as many people as he could?

 

You view it as legitimate. I view it as an ordinary person compelling another ordinary person. I don't think government agents are above me. You do. Fundamental difference in views. You believe in classes, and I don't. You believe in pre-emptive violence. I don't. And I won't, even if you vote to have violence initiated against me. And no, a "request" does not move to violence as the next step. Were I to ask you for your wallet, with the implication that if you did not give it over, I would take it from you using force, that is not a "request". It is merely a means of avoiding the physical contact. A judge recently commented that a woman was obliged to resist rape physically. You remind me of that judge: It's not violence until the "request" is denied.

 

No knock warrants have been served in the past, resulting in injury and death to civilians. Regardless, when was the last time I initiated violence against anyone? I'm talking about me. I don't care what you do. Your actions are not my responsibility, and I would not dream of having someone attack you based on the actions of some unrelated party. You seem to think "legal gun owner" is a monolithic group. I believe there are far more differences between people.

 

As I said, I reject pre-emptive violence. I'm afraid you and I are too far apart morally, seeing as you accept pre-emptive violence (albeit reserved to a special class of person) to come to agreement.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Winchester

[Kevin]

If we can't get the props back, can we please institute some sort of Stupidest Post of the Day award?

 

Gee, I don't think it was called for to insult me. I simply meant that there are many people in this world who are perfectly good and kind who might also be a bit strange, but if we pursue an aggressive policy of removing people with mental health issues or simply perceives issue from society (which is what I think is being implied), these people may becomes targets as well as those who are genuine threats. I am actually referring to the novel "The Ball and the Cross" by Chesterton where an eccentric priest who has a moment of spiritual clarity in a public place is swiftly thrown into an asylum. But mostly I don't feel insults are called for.

[Lil Red]

but if we pursue an aggressive policy of removing people with mental health issues or simply perceives issue from society (which is what I think is being implied), these people may becomes targets as well as those who are genuine threats.

 

:doh: :blink: :doh:

[kujo]

Gee, I don't think it was called for to insult me. I simply meant that there are many people in this world who are perfectly good and kind who might also be a bit strange, but if we pursue an aggressive policy of removing people with mental health issues or simply perceives issue from society (which is what I think is being implied), these people may becomes targets as well as those who are genuine threats. I am actually referring to the novel "The Ball and the Cross" by Chesterton where an eccentric priest who has a moment of spiritual clarity in a public place is swiftly thrown into an asylum. But mostly I don't feel insults are called for.

 

 

I wasn't insulting you, I was merely commenting on the fact that that segment of your post was stupider than anything else I have read today.

[Lil Red]

I wasn't insulting you, I was merely commenting on the fact that that segment of your post was stupider than anything else I have read today.

 

are you sure? did you miss this?

 

[quote name="Kevin" post="2525970" timestamp="1356031044"]
"Getting people the help they desperately need" is awfully easy to interpret as "Anyone with Aspergers needs to be thrown into an asylum."
[/quote]

[Kevin]

I wasn't insulting you, I was merely commenting on the fact that that segment of your post was stupider than anything else I have read today.

 

Of course you were. The word "stupid" is inherently ad-hominem. And now that the name calling has started, I'm just going to disengage from this whole conversation.

[MissScripture]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Kevin" data-cid="2525970" data-time="1356031044"><p>
"Getting people the help they desperately need" is awfully easy to interpret as "Anyone with Aspergers needs to be thrown into an asylum." I was a substitute teacher and I worked with students with some very nasty behavior issues, but never did I meet one so far gone that he was, as was suggested above, certain to kill someone, as if he had lost the capacity for free will already<br />
<br />
By all reports Adam Lanza was quiet and reclusive - but so are monks, yet we don't lock them up. I strongly suggest you read Chesteron's <a href='http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130.html'>The Madman</a> to get some perspective on the dangers of the path you are urging society to take.</p></blockquote>
And I have met someone who tried to get himself committed during a manic episode, because he felt he was a danger to himself and others, but the hospital was full so he was given a prescription and told to leave. But you are totally right. We are doing an awesome job addressing mental health in this country. We wouldn't have to worry about anything if not for those nasty guns.