Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism

Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism (Page 32)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2014, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Yet another example of the "shoot first and call 911 later" mentality ....



West Virginia man kills new neighbor without warning, thinking it's his property: cops   - NY Daily News

OAW

Now this is a good example of a gun owner being psycho.

Though if he put one bullet through two dudes, that was a hell of a shot.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2014, 03:44 PM
 
And I should say, with regards to the 2nd Amendment:

If you have freedom, there are those who will abuse it. This is unavoidable. It's cliche, but true, freedom comes with a price.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2014, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Now this is a good example of a gun owner being psycho.
Indeed.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Though if he put one bullet through two dudes, that was a hell of a shot.
I think when the story said ...
Then, allegedly without warning or calling the police, he grabbed a rifle and fired once at both men.
... they mean he "fired once" at each man.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2014, 03:53 PM
 
If it was at night, two bullets killing two dudes from a good distance is still some marksmen level crap to me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2014, 03:59 PM
 
I should clarify. When I say "good example" I mean "example where there is no real grey area".

"Clear" example would have been better.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2014, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Now this is a good example of a gun owner being psycho.

Though if he put one bullet through two dudes, that was a hell of a shot.
Yep. Shooting a pair of people for no good reason = psycho. Pretty open and shut, from the details given.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 06:02 AM
 
Someone who perhaps should have been shot when the homeowner opened the door.

KAALtv.com - Man Charged in North Mpls. Good Samaritan Killing
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Someone who perhaps should have been shot when the homeowner opened the door.

KAALtv.com - Man Charged in North Mpls. Good Samaritan Killing
I'd argue that opening the door for someone in distress wasn't necessarily a mistake. Handing him your gun thereby enabling him to shoot you in the head with it was definitely a mistake.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2014, 12:46 PM
 
Major "scene missing" here.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 12:31 PM
 
And in other news ....

GZ took MMA lessons at a local gym. The gym owner who just so happened to be a friend of GZ testified that there was no way he could defend himself against a skinny kid that he outweighed by 50 lbs because he sucked so bad at it. This same guy claimed under oath that even after a year of training he refused to allow GZ to spar with others because "he couldn't throw a punch". But now GZ wants to step into the ring for a Celebrity Boxing Match? Seems to me that either GZ has magically developed skills that were previously non-existent or somebody was lying. IJS.

In any event, while I would love to see GZ have his ass handed to him in a real fight where he can't pull out a gun like the little bitch that he is ... I'm going to have to ask the organizers to do better than matching him up with a known crackhead. Like ... really?



George Zimmerman to fight rapper DMX in celebrity boxing bout - CNN.com

OAW
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
In any event, while I would love to see GZ have his ass handed to him in a real fight where he can't pull out a gun like the little bitch that he is ...
Perhaps if Trayvon didn't hold the same mentality of this he'd still be here today. Y'know, trying to hand him his ass and everything.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2014, 01:00 PM
 
I could fight Klitschko in a boxing match, and would for the right amount of money, but that doesn't mean that I'd have a chance in hell of winning (though I'd likely have a better chance than Zimmerman). More senseless bitching? I believe so.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2014, 07:31 PM
 
Curtis Reeves’s son was late. So, at 1:04 p.m. on Jan. 13, Mr. Reeves, a retired police officer, sent his son a text, telling him that he and his wife had gone into the movie theater and were seated.

Not so unusual – except that, just minutes later, Reeves shot to death another theatergoer when the man refused to stop texting during the movie previews.


Reeves's son, Matthew Reeves, told investigators that his father had replied to his text that he was late to meet them at the 1:20 p.m. showing of "Lone Survivor," after he stopped to wash his truck, according to documents released Thursday by Florida prosecutors and obtained by the Associated Press. His father had replied that he and his wife were seated.

When Matthew did walk into the theater, about 15 minutes later, he saw the light and heard the sound of the gunshot that killed Chad Oulsen, who was sitting with his wife and had been texting the babysitter watching his young daughter while waiting for the movie to begin, according to investigators quoted in The Tampa Bay Times. Matthew had rushed to use a bystander’s shirt to stop the blood flow from the wounded man and had looked up to see his father, standing in the theater’s back row, looking shocked, according to The Tampa Bay Times.

Reeves faces charges of second-degree murder and aggravated battery and has pleaded not guilty to both counts. If convicted, he faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison.

Reeves's attorneys have said that he acted in self-defense and cite Florida’s “stand-your-ground” law, which nulls a person’s obligation to retreat if they feel that they are in danger. Reeves told police that Mr. Oulson had punched him, according to AP.

Other witnesses, though, including Oulson’s wife, dispute that narrative, saying that Oulson did not strike Reeves but had tossed popcorn at him.
Florida cinema shooting: Man who killed texter had been texting, too - CSMonitor.com

And this my friends is a prime example of why these SYG laws are so dangerous. So this old dude who was texting himself causes a ruckus with the other guy because he was texting the babysitter about his toddler daughter moments later. Then when things get heated the other guy tosses popcorn in his face, the old dude gets pissed ... loses control ... and because he had a weapon handy he pulls it out and shoots the other guy dead. He then lies to the police and claims that the other guy punched him ... which is not only uncorroborated but also outright refuted by ALL the witnesses including his own wife. And now this hypocritical asshole has the unmitigated gall to try to invoke SYG. And given how the Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis cases went down ... he might actually get away with it.

OAW
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2014, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Florida cinema shooting: Man who killed texter had been texting, too - CSMonitor.com

And this my friends is a prime example of why these SYG laws are so dangerous. So this old dude who was texting himself causes a ruckus with the other guy because he was texting the babysitter about his toddler daughter moments later. Then when things get heated the other guy tosses popcorn in his face, the old dude gets pissed ... loses control ... and because he had a weapon handy he pulls it out and shoots the other guy dead. He then lies to the police and claims that the other guy punched him ... which is not only uncorroborated but also outright refuted by ALL the witnesses including his own wife. And now this hypocritical asshole has the unmitigated gall to try to invoke SYG. And given how the Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis cases went down ... he might actually get away with it.

OAW


Man you love to sensationalize eh?

Before you blow your wad of outrage, why don't we see how the trial plays out? What makes you think "he might actually get away with it"? Are those pesky kids and their meddling dog on vacation or something?

What you're saying is that this dude has unmitigated gall to mount a defense at his own trial. What should we have done, OAW, killed him in an angry mob without a trial?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2014, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post


Man you love to sensationalize eh?

Before you blow your wad of outrage, why don't we see how the trial plays out? What makes you think "he might actually get away with it"? Are those pesky kids and their meddling dog on vacation or something?

What you're saying is that this dude has unmitigated gall to mount a defense at his own trial. What should we have done, OAW, killed him in an angry mob without a trial?
He's incapable of any rationality in this thread.

1. No, they shouldn't defend themselves, let alone receive a fair trial. Lynching is preferred.
2. Emotion trumps the law, or even reason.
3. Apparently spending the rest of his life in prison for what he's already been found guilty of is "getting away with it", and let's all ignore that Michael Dunn's being retried for the killing of Jordan Davis.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2014, 10:47 PM
 
I don't see any "stand your ground" situation here. It's clearly a violation of the spirit of Florida's concealed carry laws to use deadly force in a situation that could have easily been de-escalated by the shooter. There was no "ground" to "stand," whether he says he was punched or not. He could have changed seats and ended the confrontation - instead, he both initiated and escalated the confrontation to the point where he used deadly force. I would not be chosen as his juror because I wouldn't be able to say "yeah, I can see how that could play out..." Because I can't.

This is STILL not about guns. It is STILL about people who can't handle the responsibility of firearm ownership misbehaving with guns.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2014, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I don't see any "stand your ground" situation here. It's clearly a violation of the spirit of Florida's concealed carry laws to use deadly force in a situation that could have easily been de-escalated by the shooter. There was no "ground" to "stand," whether he says he was punched or not. He could have changed seats and ended the confrontation - instead, he both initiated and escalated the confrontation to the point where he used deadly force. I would not be chosen as his juror because I wouldn't be able to say "yeah, I can see how that could play out..." Because I can't.

This is STILL not about guns. It is STILL about people who can't handle the responsibility of firearm ownership misbehaving with guns.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2014, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I don't see any "stand your ground" situation here. It's clearly a violation of the spirit of Florida's concealed carry laws to use deadly force in a situation that could have easily been de-escalated by the shooter. There was no "ground" to "stand," whether he says he was punched or not. He could have changed seats and ended the confrontation - instead, he both initiated and escalated the confrontation to the point where he used deadly force.
And what you have just said here goes to the core of why these SYG laws are so dangerous. You have made a wise, common-sense observation of what the law should or ought to be. There is the spirit of the law ... and there is what the law actually says as written. IIRC, the SYG in Florida ... and in many other states because the majority of them passed legislation based on the same model bill from ALEC ... states that anyone not involved in illegal activity has the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe it's necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm. And therein lies the rub. It does NOT say that one can't be the initiator and/or escalator of an easily avoided confrontation and still claim SYG. One would think that wouldn't be the case ... but apparently that would be too much like right.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2014, 07:41 PM
 
It seems to me the relevant data here is the actions of the person who got shot. Is there new info on this?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2014, 08:02 PM
 
SYG laws are only dangerous if you can establish that they're a net-loss in self-defense vs abuse. If you cannot substantiate the latter as being more prevalent, it can be argued that SYG laws are actually compassionate and necessary.

Without unified efforts from ALEC (a new, popular enemy of the left), groups like the Progressive States Network exploit tragedy for modeling gun control legislation throughout the country.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2014, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It seems to me the relevant data here is the actions of the person who got shot. Is there new info on this?
I've seen nothing new reported about the victim.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2014, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
SYG laws are only dangerous if you can establish that they're a net-loss in self-defense vs abuse. If you cannot substantiate the latter as being more prevalent, it can be argued that SYG laws are actually compassionate and necessary.
Would you be opposed to the SYG legislation being tightened to explicitly disallow instigators, provocateurs, and initiators of confrontations from having a waiver on the "duty to retreat"?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2014, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I've seen nothing new reported about the victim.

OAW
I can't see how one can make a declaration either way without witnesses elaborating on that.

The "threatening move" the shooter claims prompted him could be anything from totally non-existent to a genuine life-threatening move.

This is what is known in the parlance as a relevant detail.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2014, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Would you be opposed to the SYG legislation being tightened to explicitly disallow instigators, provocateurs, and initiators of confrontations from having a waiver on the "duty to retreat"?

OAW
I don't think your provision tightens the law. i.e. the matter is still subject to the judicial system.

What constitutes "provocation"? Is it telling someone to quiet their child? Is it throwing popcorn? Do we measure words vs physicality? In other words, if I call you a jerk -- am I at fault for provoking you to cause me $2000 in dental work?
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2014, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't think your provision tightens the law. i.e. the matter is still subject to the judicial system.

What constitutes "provocation"? Is it telling someone to quiet their child? Is it throwing popcorn? Do we measure words vs physicality? In other words, if I call you a jerk -- am I at fault for provoking you to cause me $2000 in dental work?
We'll let me give you an example. Should a guy who starts a bar fight get to claim SYG if he starts to get his ass kicked?

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2014, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
We'll let me give you an example. Should a guy who starts a bar fight get to claim SYG if he starts to get his ass kicked?

OAW
How is this an example?

How did he start the bar fight? By not giving up his seat for the other drunk guy's girlfriend? For saying "No, I won't give up my seat"? For calling the other guy a jerk? What's the penalty for starting a bar fight -- beaten within an inch of your life? Two inches? Five inches?

If I call someone a jerk, I do not deserve to get my ass kicked, but the man I called a jerk may feel convicted enough to bring physical harm upon me at which point I may feel threatened enough to draw on him. The first one to take it from words to physicality is the party at fault as far as I'm concerned.
ebuddy
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2014, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
We'll let me give you an example. Should a guy who starts a bar fight get to claim SYG if he starts to get his ass kicked?

OAW
OAW, If he initiates the violence it is not SYG.

Also, there's a difference between using a defense at a trial and it being successful. Seems you struggle with this this concept as well.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2014, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
How is this an example?

How did he start the bar fight? By not giving up his seat for the other drunk guy's girlfriend? For saying "No, I won't give up my seat"? For calling the other guy a jerk? What's the penalty for starting a bar fight -- beaten within an inch of your life? Two inches? Five inches?

If I call someone a jerk, I do not deserve to get my ass kicked, but the man I called a jerk may feel convicted enough to bring physical harm upon me at which point I may feel threatened enough to draw on him. The first one to take it from words to physicality is the party at fault as far as I'm concerned.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
OAW, If he initiates the violence it is not SYG.

Also, there's a difference between using a defense at a trial and it being successful. Seems you struggle with this this concept as well.
I think both of you are intentionally? trying to make this a "black-and-white" argument when the point that I'm making is that SYG laws as written don't handle "shades of gray" situations very well. The "starting a bar fight" scenario I'm getting at isn't some guy JAW-JACKING. I'm talking about a guy BEHAVING in a very belligerent and threatening manner. Technically he hasn't broken the law b/c he hasn't thrown a punch. But you guys know what I'm talking about when someone is getting so amped up and belligerent that the other party justifiably feels that sh*t is about to get real imminently. In that case the other party may feel threatened enough to swing first if walking away isn't an option. So in that type of scenario when things jump off physically ... does the guy who initiated the confrontation get to claim SYG if he pulls out a gun a shoots? How is his claim of self-defense more valid than the guy who was being threatened?

Another scenario ... and yes I know this isn't SYG b/c of the age level ... but my point remains. You can find videos of things like this on YouTube all day everyday. Teen A is walking home minding his business. Teen B along with his posse is following Teen A home. Threatening, getting in his face, challenging him to fight, sh*t talking, etc. Teen A ignores Teen B and keeps walking but the threats continue. Eventually Teen B gets up into Teen A's face one time too many and Teen A commences to beating his ass. Classic case of a bully getting his comeuppance! So does "The first one to take it from words to physicality is the party at fault as far as I'm concerned." apply in that situation as well? Should Teen A be charged with assault? Or does self-defense apply?

My point is that if it's not so "black-and-white" in a situation like that ... imagine if Teen B was strapped! And if it's not so "black-and-white" for teens why wouldn't the same apply to adults who could legally carry? It just seems to me that if one is going to legally carry a concealed weapon in public the onus should be on that person to make all reasonable efforts to avoid and/or retreat from confrontation because of the deadly consequences that can ensue from using that firearm. SYG upends what I consider to be a long-standing common sense aspect of self-defense law.

As for "there's a difference between using a defense at a trial and it being successful" ... it would appear the SYG was fairly successful in the Jordan Davis case since the guy got a mistrial on the murder charge. The jury couldn't even agree on lesser charges like manslaughter. Because once again there are those who are all too willing to believe a white guy's concocted story simply on his word that the other guy had a gun despite no physical evidence to support it. Especially when the person who ends up shot is a minority. Of course, there are those who will say that he was convicted of 3 counts of Attempted Murder on Davis' buddies. And this is true. But that's only because even according to this guy's own testimony and that of other witnesses the other guys never got into a verbal confrontation with him. So when he shot up the car indiscriminately ... especially when they were backing away trying to flee ... it's impossible to claim self-defense on the guys who even you didn't claim threatened you. But my point is ... imagine if Jordan Davis was by himself that night. Dude would be chilling at home right now. Well maybe not "chilling" b/c he would have the specter of another trial hanging over his head. But he wouldn't be in jail like he deserved. Because despite the fact that no witnesses saw a gun (including his own girlfriend who was with him), no video captured footage of a gun, Davis' buddies all testified that none of them were armed, the police never recovered a gun ... and everything I just said ALSO applies to Jordan Davis even getting out of the car mind you ... simply because this guy SAID Davis started to get out of the car with a gun he felt he was justified to shoot in "self-defense" because SYG said he had no duty to retreat. And then go to a motel and order pizza with his girlfriend. And then never bother to report the shooting until the police contacted him the next day. Without that provision of the law something more like ... oh I don't know ... perhaps moving your car to another parking space if the music was so loud it was "hurting your ears" would have been in order? But instead, what SYG provided was for some dude who happened to be carrying to deep six a kid because he mouthed off to him and pissed him off and escape a conviction on a murder or manslaughter charge.. At least for now.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2014, 07:10 AM
 
You seem to want law to be God, OAW. Law cannot be God. The more gray that laws are expected to cover, the more difficult the law is to discern by laypeople and the more it will be subject to the court system for adjudication anyway. You're asking for an a$$hole provision to the law and I don't believe that will tighten the law, but in fact -- loosen it. In the bully hypothetical you offered above, the bully will almost invariably attempt to trip the victim, knock their books out of their hands, or engage physicality because the words aren't enough. If the other one avoids or ignores the bully and just continues walking, the bully is not getting the power grab or "respect" they seek and will escalate the matter to physicality almost invariably.

The first one to initiate physicality should be culpable for the genesis moment of violence. The moral of the story? Don't bully people, you don't know if they're a black-belt in karate with hands and feet registered as weapons under state laws or they're packing registered weapons. Otherwise, the court system adjudicates matters on evidence. You can ask four different people what was said or not said and you'll get four different stories. What you cannot hide, generally, is evidence of physicality and/or violence and the first one to perpetrate it will often be viewed as the party that invoked hostility because that's more solid from an evidentiary perspective. Let the fact that you couldn't address my direct questions be exhibit A of the problem -- again from an evidentiary perspective.
ebuddy
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2014, 09:42 AM
 
OAW, our differing observations do not in any way discount the utility of "stand your ground" provisions in statute. Yours DO, however, show that Florida needs to be a lot better at screening people for their concealed carry licenses.

So far in the last couple of years, there have been more newsworthy (if you want to call them that) cases of Florida licensed concealed carriers proving that they should not have been licensed than I can find researching Texas transgressions. Is this because Texas is working harder at screening people? I think that's part of it. But I also think there's a local cultural component as well. On the other hand, Florida has a highly fractured social mix that doesn't help people avoid problems.

There are also a very large number of ways Texans can lose their concealed carry licenses, many of which are the equivalent of a municipal citation infraction, while I don't know how big a problem a Floridian has to cause to lose his/her license.

And I find it interesting that we're not hearing about as many problems with other states' concealed carry and "stand your ground" statutes. Let's not paint every law with a brush dipped in Florida weirdness. I think we can all agree that California is a "granola" state - full of nuts and flakes - but Florida seems to attract goofier and less easily managed oddball folks, at least from the (relatively broad) sample I've taken over the years of native Floridians and those who moved there for whatever reason.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2014, 06:56 PM
 
The reason why I think this whole idea of fighting tyranny is irrational: look at voter turnout numbers in the US (hint: they are low compared to other countries).

We can all agree that violence is almost always, if not always the best last resort to solving problems, right?

There are a number of steps between what we have now and an actual tyranny. One is getting greater numbers of people to turn out and vote, and if neither candidate is doing it for people, voting for third party candidates that do. If the majority of the public thought that we lived in an actual tyranny or approaching one, wouldn't more people vote?

I've said for a long time that I think that it doesn't really matter who one votes for right now, and I still think that is true, but obviously my viewpoint is not widely shared or else people would start voting for more third party candidates, or at least being far more politically active between elections.

People don't turn out to vote because they feel that it won't make enough of a difference to be worth their time, and because the status quo is not dire. People may not be happy with this current political climate or feel that it is at all optimal and serving their best interests, but if this unhappiness ever reaches a boiling point, you can bet that people will become far more politically active.

Until the possibility of not being to vote for candidates is on the horizon, this whole idea of a violent uprising is absurd (and, of course, oddly silent during the Bush years). You can say that our crumbling Democracy is on the horizon, but I think this is a gross exaggeration, and that even if it was, the most appropriate and practical solution in the meantime isn't to start planning on some violent uprising.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2014, 09:04 PM
 
i.e. You have to pass tyranny to know what's in it.

Otherwise, tl;dr
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2014, 07:41 AM
 
If voter turnouts were in the 80+ percentile range, the need for firearms in defense against tyranny would be less of an issue, but they should never be abolished, even then. That's why our founders placed their ownership so high up in the Bill of Rights.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 06:50 AM
 
^^ The folks unwilling to accept the idea that a firearm is a form of insurance will likewise fail to acknowledge that perhaps the most important function they serve is their very presence, without ever having been fired. These folks will continue to assume the only reason to have a gun is to storm leadership or kill people and their existence is therefore, detestable.

This leads to the logic that a violent uprising pre-tyranny is more of a threat than tyranny itself. Government = sane and just, you and me = psychotics clinging to our gods and guns.
ebuddy
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 07:03 AM
 
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
― Benjamin Franklin

There is tyranny due to government over-reach, and there is "the tyranny of the majority." Our system is supposed to prevent both, but many Founding Fathers are quoted variously to the effect that individuals' rights to be armed are essentially a necessary foundation of all individual rights.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
― Benjamin Franklin

There is tyranny due to government over-reach, and there is "the tyranny of the majority." Our system is supposed to prevent both, but many Founding Fathers are quoted variously to the effect that individuals' rights to be armed are essentially a necessary foundation of all individual rights.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This leads to the logic that a violent uprising pre-tyranny is more of a threat than tyranny itself. Government = sane and just, you and me = psychotics clinging to our gods and guns.
Perfectly said.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
― Benjamin Franklin

There is tyranny due to government over-reach, and there is "the tyranny of the majority." Our system is supposed to prevent both, but many Founding Fathers are quoted variously to the effect that individuals' rights to be armed are essentially a necessary foundation of all individual rights.
While this quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is not found in any of his writings and is likely an invention of the internet ... the sentiment is understandable though ultimately misguided. I would hope we would all agree that the protections afforded by the Constitution should be adhered to by all citizens voluntarily because they apply to all equally. Because the moment the notion takes hold that Constitutional protections are secured amongst the citizenry by force of arms (especially that of the minority) instead of belief in what the Constitution represents ... it is at that point that the Constitution will not be worth the paper it was written on. IJS


OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 07:19 PM
 
It should also be mentioned one of the reasons the FF felt the need to link firearms to freedom is some, shall we say... intimate experience of people with guns taking your freedom and putting you on a boat.

That doesn't really support my position, but I guess that's tough shit for me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2014, 07:41 PM
 
But more than that, if we're going to play Carnack with the intentions of the FF, it is 100%, unarguably clear the FF did not speak of whether people should be allowed to be armed or not. What they intended is for it to be impossible for the Federal Government to impose strictures on it. Not only were the states free to make their own restrictions on weaponry, they were guaranteed that right. That applies not just to guns, but everything in the Bill of Rights.

We have a 14th Amendment now, so the situation is different, but make no mistake, the FF were just fine with restricting guns, speech, and religion.

OTOH, while supporting a situation where guns (as well as speech and religion) could be restricted in an infinite number of combinations, they put in the Constitution a single restriction they felt was going too far. It isn't any particular restriction. Again, they were fine with all of them. The one restriction which goes too far is one enacted by the central authority.

If the intent of that single restriction isn't as a check on the Federal Government, then what is it? The Federal Government is the only affected entity.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 27, 2014 at 07:59 PM. )
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2014, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
While this quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is not found in any of his writings and is likely an invention of the internet ...
A little gooling reveals that the word "lunch" was not in use until decades after his death, so no, it wasn't Benjamin Franklin. I wonder who comes up with all these attributions to him?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2014, 02:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The sentiment is understandable though ultimately misguided.
I disagree

I would hope we would all agree that the protections afforded by the Constitution should be adhered to by all citizens voluntarily because they apply to all equally.
Including the 2nd amendment? Because thats why its there (among other reasons).


Because the moment the notion takes hold that Constitutional protections are secured amongst the citizenry by force of arms (especially that of the minority) instead of belief in what the Constitution represents
The belief in the Constitution is what the arms secure, as has been proven time and again throughout history; unchecked authority rapidly leads to loss of individual rights.

Why is it that you think the Government has a greater incentive to uphold individual's rights than individuals do? Because they pinky swear to?


... it is at that point that the Constitution will not be worth the paper it was written on. IJS
Why is this somehow detestable? The only reason we have these rights is because the American people secured them through force of arms. We even wrote it into our Constitution as the 2nd entry to the bill of rights at the founding of our nation. Do you find the manner in which our country was founded detestable as well?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2014, 05:23 AM
 
We have guns to keep the gov't from assuming it can do whatever it wants, they're insurance policies.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2014, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
While this quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is not found in any of his writings and is likely an invention of the internet ... the sentiment is understandable though ultimately misguided. I would hope we would all agree that the protections afforded by the Constitution should be adhered to by all citizens voluntarily because they apply to all equally. Because the moment the notion takes hold that Constitutional protections are secured amongst the citizenry by force of arms (especially that of the minority) instead of belief in what the Constitution represents ... it is at that point that the Constitution will not be worth the paper it was written on. IJS


OAW
I assure you, the quote predates the Internet.

The issue involved in this quote is not as much "an armed citizenry" assuring protection of the minority by force. It is instead about the fact that pure democracy must be tempered with rules and actions that prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority. I find it particularly true when the "voting majority" is itself a very small minority of the voting-eligible population.

I speak out against unreasonable barriers to my fellows' freedom because that is how we ALL participate in securing our own individual freedoms. In the context of the 2nd Amendment, I speak out because there is far more good in expanding freedoms than in curtailing them.

I feel the attributed to Franklin quote applies allegorically at all levels. The minority in question need not be literally armed, but must be figuratively armed as in prepared to take steps to prevent a vocal majority from infringing on their rights. Here's an example: in 2001, probably November, a Middle-Eastern restaurant in San Antonio was vandalized and seriously damaged by idiots who appear to have had no concept of the variety of "Middle-Eastern" cultures there are. It was a Farsi restaurant owned and run by a family who escaped from Iran shortly before their revolution, and who are now upstanding US citizens. I didn't get a chance to organize a fundraiser to help them rebuild; it happened within minutes of the attack on their restaurant had hit the news. This family, in a religious minority even among the broad context of Islam, was victimized, and that in itself threatened my own religious freedom, so while I couldn't start the effort to help them, I certainly could participate.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2014, 08:03 PM
 
The problem is that the people with all the guns and the bugs up their asses about overthrowing tyrannical governments are the last people who should ever be trusted to judge whether or not a government is tyrannical.

Did anyone notice how quite recently the leader of a corrupt, tyrannical government in a developed country with armed police and soldiers on his side was ousted without the populace needing to resort to guns?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2014, 08:27 PM
 
The people with bugs up their asses won't get anywhere without a larger consensus than just themselves.

You lost me on the second argument. Why does that scenario obviate the others?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2014, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Did anyone notice how quite recently the leader of a corrupt, tyrannical government in a developed country with armed police and soldiers on his side was ousted without the populace needing to resort to guns?
If/when the US falls, sparked by the collapse of our economy and natural disasters, it'll be unlike anything seen since Rome. Because it will essentially mark the second Dark Age for the Western world and likely drag the rest down with it. Maybe not Mad Max level of anarchy, but it will be a long time until anything that even resembles the rule of law is accepted. A lot of people are going to die, maybe ~1/2 the world's population or more. Maps will shift around, and even though it won't take 1000 years to sort out, a century or two isn't unlikely. It's inevitable, we've had a great run, one of the longest ever, but it's about time for the shit to hit the fan again so we can have a new landscape. In the long run, it will do our species and this planet some good. Anyhow, it'll probably be a good idea to be well-armed when that happens.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2014, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Did anyone notice how quite recently the leader of a corrupt, tyrannical government in a developed country with armed police and soldiers on his side was ousted without the populace needing to resort to guns?
Are you absolutely sure about this? i.e. which ouster are you talking about?
ebuddy
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2014, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The problem is that the people with all the guns and the bugs up their asses about overthrowing tyrannical governments are the last people who should ever be trusted to judge whether or not a government is tyrannical.
Right, because thats how the American revolution happened.

Do you have anything to back up that asinine statement or are you just joining the leftist hate train? I am a gun owner. Do you think that I am among the last people to be trusted as to whether a government is tyrannical or not?

In your eyes, should I even still be allowed to vote?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2014, 04:37 PM
 
Let's be fair here.

There's are a certain small segment of gun owners who are totally ****ing froot loops, and they're very vocal.

Looking from a few thousand miles away, they could seem to represent a larger group then they really do.


Just as a point of reference for Waragainstsleep. I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment as a deterrence to tyranny. I don't own a gun.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2