AStone
Member
Standing over here with Jeff, Oleg
& some others that I trust...
Nem
& some others that I trust...
Nem
**Bloodlust**READ THIS THREAD BEFORE POSTING IN THIS SUBFORUM!
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
Carl N. Brown
Member
As was explained to me, deadly force is justified if a reasonable
person would be in fear of an imminent threat of death or bodily
harm if they did not act immediately.
Most laws on use of deadly force against intruders at night seem
to be based on the presumption that a nighttime intruder in a
domicile should be considered and treated as an imminent threat.
Everyone armed in self-defense needs to re-read cases like the
Louisiana Hattori incident, where a self defemse shooting was
found not criminal in criminal court but wrongful in a civil suit.
In that case the homeowner was mistaken about the actual
threat posed by the person banging on the backdoor at night.
Weight and Rossi found that criminals feared being shot by a
victim more than they feared arrest or jail. They also found
that a significant percentage of felon inmates recounted
anecdotes of planned crimes canceled because the intended
victim was found to be armed. So armed self-defense deters
crime, For everyone. But braggadoccio shoot-first rhetoric
can be used to undercut legitimate self-defense.
This is a reasonable. responsible and cautious daedly force policy.
I do know a woman who held a car burglar at gunpoint until the arrival
of police to arrest him. I firmly believe that was justified because
if she allowed him to get up from the floorboard of her car, he
reasonably could have been a threat of death or bodily harm to her.
Some people who commit theft are often not above rape or murder
if they think they can get away with it. There is a couple, friends
of my brother, with whom I played vollyball at a 4th of July picnic,
who I will never see again, because a car jacker killed them for a
car and eleven dollars; thieves of property often become thieves
of lives.
But I would advocate training to use deadly force only under conditions
of countering a threat to life or limb. Deadly force is justified against
a deadly threat only.
I am beginning to ramble so I'll shut up.
for now.
With all due respect, I think the new policy is a mistake.
Having a "clean well-lighted place" on the internet to discuss firearms issues is one thing. Trying to create an artificial Utopia where "never is heard a discouraging word" means the discussion is artificially contrived. Do I think that statements advocating illegal or unethical conduct should go unchallenged? That's what "discussion" is all about, right? If a moderator or members need to challenge a questionable post with a counter-argument, then we all learn something in the discussion, even if what we learn is something about the temperment of the posters involved. If someone posts something illegal or unethical, we all benefit from the ensuing discussion about WHY it's illegal or unethical, and we learn to recognize that a lot of people feel differently than we do about things, and that laws are just words on paper that apply to limited geographic areas, not commandments etched in stone for all the universe to abide by. Some people think that THEIR morals and THEIR ethics are "right" and anyone who disagrees is "wrong". When I see this, I just have to laugh. Ethics is not a "one size fits all" proposition, folks. If you think it is, then that laughter in the background is probably for you. We'll hang around until you get the joke and laugh along with us...
I'm a firm believer in freedom of expression. Yes, it's a privately owned forum, but who wants to have a discussion only with people who agree with them about everything? If you're going to start laying down rules about "this is verbotten, that's off limits, and keep yer yap shut about thus-n-so" then what kind of "discussion" is that, really? Ban all the really interesting topics (ones where people disagree about things on a fundamental level) and you can go back to an unending stream of "9mm vs .45 ACP" threads. And see how satisfying you find things in a dull, static, repetitive gun discussion Utopia.
The real question here is whether the new rule serves the forum, the members, or the rule-maker. My personal feeling is it does not serve the members nor the forum.
Having a "clean well-lighted place" on the internet to discuss firearms issues is one thing. Trying to create an artificial Utopia where "never is heard a discouraging word" means the discussion is artificially contrived. Do I think that statements advocating illegal or unethical conduct should go unchallenged? That's what "discussion" is all about, right? If a moderator or members need to challenge a questionable post with a counter-argument, then we all learn something in the discussion, even if what we learn is something about the temperment of the posters involved. If someone posts something illegal or unethical, we all benefit from the ensuing discussion about WHY it's illegal or unethical, and we learn to recognize that a lot of people feel differently than we do about things, and that laws are just words on paper that apply to limited geographic areas, not commandments etched in stone for all the universe to abide by. Some people think that THEIR morals and THEIR ethics are "right" and anyone who disagrees is "wrong". When I see this, I just have to laugh. Ethics is not a "one size fits all" proposition, folks. If you think it is, then that laughter in the background is probably for you. We'll hang around until you get the joke and laugh along with us...
I'm a firm believer in freedom of expression. Yes, it's a privately owned forum, but who wants to have a discussion only with people who agree with them about everything? If you're going to start laying down rules about "this is verbotten, that's off limits, and keep yer yap shut about thus-n-so" then what kind of "discussion" is that, really? Ban all the really interesting topics (ones where people disagree about things on a fundamental level) and you can go back to an unending stream of "9mm vs .45 ACP" threads. And see how satisfying you find things in a dull, static, repetitive gun discussion Utopia.
The real question here is whether the new rule serves the forum, the members, or the rule-maker. My personal feeling is it does not serve the members nor the forum.
AStone
Member
In both principle and spirit, Bruss, I agree with you.
But here's the rub, IMO. I tend to follow the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. That is, I'm OK with discussing the ethicality {word?} and legalities of various aspects of guns on this forum. But if a member chooses to challenge a law or code of ethics that is accepted as reasonable by the forum owner and the moderators by advocating violence or "unethical" behavior (again, as recognized by the owner or mods), then I think it's unwise to condone a "discussion" about the legitimacy of that behavior that recognizes that it may be legitimate in the current conditions called US of A.
I recognize that kind of behavior is similar to behavior that I've seen among some students in my classrooms (when I taught at public colleges). I would clearly lay out rules of acceptable classroom behavior and discussion, stating clearly that they weren't necessarily going to be the optimal rules for all, and that they were not "right" in some absolute or moral sense. But they worked and allowed participation by all. Yet, occassionally, instead of challenging a rule via discussion, some moron would attempt to just be a radical rebel and violate a rule. That always caused more disruption and got none of us anywhere with respect to the goals of the class: to discuss the topics covered by the class. If students wanted to challenge the rules, to suggest better ones, there were ways to do that such that it didn't discuss the flow of the class.
This forum is based in the US (and most, even though certainly not all, members are from here) where gun issues are very "touchy" already. (Moreso in some states than others...but you know that.) The anti's are drooling for tidbits to use against responsible gun ownership. Therefore, to allow discussions that include advocacy of breaking laws or conducting unethical behavior {one more time, as generally recognized by the owner and mods} is unwise given the goals of this forum: to promote conditions supportive of responsible gun ownership.
There are plenty of forums on the web where there is a no-holds-barred approach to discussion of issues. While I agree in principle with you, Bruss, that there are no absolutes, for those unwilling to follow the guidlines set forth here, I'd say, take a hike and find a different camp.
Nem
Once again, some of you guys are making this way too complicated.
All of the posts on the last couple of pages have been well reasoned and logical. Using Card's post for example. The ideas he expresses there make sense. If you have a bad guy in your home, with out complicating this too much, a reasonable person can assume that they have the ability, opportunity, and are an immediate threat of grevious bodily harm. What you do from that point depends on the tactics of the situation. Perfectly fine, and discussing that issue isn't going to get anybody banned.
The stuff Jeff is trying to squash is the stupid crap posts by internet commandos, who've never drawn a drop of blood in their life, who's posts stink up this board, and make all gun owners everywhere look like morons. This isn't some plea for utopia (where the hell did that come from anyway?) but rather a clarification of what kind of discussion is or is not allowable here.
You guys have no idea some of the posts that we've deleted off of this forum. I'm talking about morons advocating murder, and offering self defense advice that would end up landing any poor sucker who took it into prison. I'm talking about macho chest beating, from sixteen year olds who are talking down to Vietnam vets with multiple purple hearts. I'm talking about threads from people who are probably too stupid to safely own a gun, let alone being literate enough to fill out the paperwork to buy one, giving legal advice to people who teach self defense for a living.
That crap has got to go. This is Jeff's forum, and in his experience, the majority of the garbage originates in the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out posts and spirals down from there.
All of the posts on the last couple of pages have been well reasoned and logical. Using Card's post for example. The ideas he expresses there make sense. If you have a bad guy in your home, with out complicating this too much, a reasonable person can assume that they have the ability, opportunity, and are an immediate threat of grevious bodily harm. What you do from that point depends on the tactics of the situation. Perfectly fine, and discussing that issue isn't going to get anybody banned.
The stuff Jeff is trying to squash is the stupid crap posts by internet commandos, who've never drawn a drop of blood in their life, who's posts stink up this board, and make all gun owners everywhere look like morons. This isn't some plea for utopia (where the hell did that come from anyway?) but rather a clarification of what kind of discussion is or is not allowable here.
You guys have no idea some of the posts that we've deleted off of this forum. I'm talking about morons advocating murder, and offering self defense advice that would end up landing any poor sucker who took it into prison. I'm talking about macho chest beating, from sixteen year olds who are talking down to Vietnam vets with multiple purple hearts. I'm talking about threads from people who are probably too stupid to safely own a gun, let alone being literate enough to fill out the paperwork to buy one, giving legal advice to people who teach self defense for a living.
That crap has got to go. This is Jeff's forum, and in his experience, the majority of the garbage originates in the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out posts and spirals down from there.
Balog
Member
I'm sort of curious on what the policy is regarding theft of property that is in and of itself a threat. Things like firearms, explosives for those with a blating permit etc. And what about the keys or passcodes to access such things? I know in a military context deadly force is authorized against the theft of weapons, classified information, and things such as NOD's and comm gear. I'm not sure how this translates into the civilian world, tho.
SMLE
Member
My house, my car and everything I worked my @$$ off for all my life, That's what!
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that you are lying on your death bed and you know that you have exactly 4 hours to live. If someone comes in and kills you with only one hour left, that person is still guilty of murder. The same is of course true if you are killed with 30 or 40 YEARS left to live. Now, it takes a certain about of time at work for you to earn the money to buy the stuff you own. You give up those hours that you could otherwise be using to do something you want to do. When someone steals, destroyies or damages your property, they are taking away those hours of your life. What is the difference between stealing the time off of the end of someone's life versus taking it out of the middle. I traded part of my life for my property, when you take my property you are taking my life.
I have significant home owner's insurance - in fact, I must for the mortgage. Thus, except for the deductible - my property is covered from loss.
If I shoot someone - even if good - I probably face significant legal expenses. In TX, I've been told you might spend $5000 for a good shoot and about $250K for a bad one, in the extreme.
So they may take away the time to file a claim. Fighting it out in court will take more time and money. Thus, I don't find the argument in my case convincing. Shooting is to defend one from grievous bodily harm.
I suggest the people who carry on about property are missing the true motivation of that argument. For many, the money is not that important - however, it is the sense of personal violation that their stuff is messed with that outrages them and leads to the blood lust. Simple territoriality is the reason for this.
If I shoot someone - even if good - I probably face significant legal expenses. In TX, I've been told you might spend $5000 for a good shoot and about $250K for a bad one, in the extreme.
So they may take away the time to file a claim. Fighting it out in court will take more time and money. Thus, I don't find the argument in my case convincing. Shooting is to defend one from grievous bodily harm.
I suggest the people who carry on about property are missing the true motivation of that argument. For many, the money is not that important - however, it is the sense of personal violation that their stuff is messed with that outrages them and leads to the blood lust. Simple territoriality is the reason for this.
Carl N. Brown
Member
About fifteen years ago, a burglar or burglars
took a lock box drom my house.
The thing I miss most from that theft is an
empty .30-06 cartridge casing from the 21
gun salute at my father's military funeral.
My sister confronted a home invader twenty
years ago. Brandishment of a .357 sent him
running. She still has her dignity.
I still feel violated today fifteen years later.
------------------------------------------
I had homeowner's insurance but that did not
replace my loss.
took a lock box drom my house.
The thing I miss most from that theft is an
empty .30-06 cartridge casing from the 21
gun salute at my father's military funeral.
My sister confronted a home invader twenty
years ago. Brandishment of a .357 sent him
running. She still has her dignity.
I still feel violated today fifteen years later.
------------------------------------------
I had homeowner's insurance but that did not
replace my loss.
Last edited:
T. Bracker
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 155
Good move Mr. White. I have not been a member here too long, but did notice a significant increase in the tactical keyboard commandos and their endless lusting to shoot someone. In my line of work (medicine), I have seen more people than I would like die and many times it is not pretty. Especially if you add screaming, flailing and bleeding to the equation. Excellent choice.
SMLE & GEM both nail it.
SMLE
"Time is money" is an old saying that embodies the wisdom that we all trade bits of our life in return for compensation. If some person steals your $150 VCR, he has also stolen the time you traded to your employer to earn $150 after tax dollars. You slaved those hours for the benefit of the thief.
GEM
Demonstrated that the risk of theft (and the theft of the loss of life/time) can be attentuated with homeowner's insurance.
Because I am fairly well-insured, I will likely not use deadly force solely to protect my property, as the cost of a righteous shooting is greater than my deductable*.
The above calculus goes right out the window in a crisis situation such as Katrina where depriving someone of property (water, food, firearms, medicine, etc.) is equivalent to killing or deadly injury. My response in this case would not be a proper accounting of property loss to report to State Farm.
Balog also presents an interesting situation, where the property in question can be used for deadly purposes. Does the owner of tons of ammonium nitrate let the thief drive off unmolested to go off to plan and execute another OK City?
* This is the prudent course of action, though it is the immoral course, since the thief will likely steal from my neighbor in the future. So much for loving my neighbor as I love myself. As many have deomstrated in this very thread, our culture has degenerated to the point that the moral response is frowned upon by most.
SMLE
"Time is money" is an old saying that embodies the wisdom that we all trade bits of our life in return for compensation. If some person steals your $150 VCR, he has also stolen the time you traded to your employer to earn $150 after tax dollars. You slaved those hours for the benefit of the thief.
GEM
Demonstrated that the risk of theft (and the theft of the loss of life/time) can be attentuated with homeowner's insurance.
Because I am fairly well-insured, I will likely not use deadly force solely to protect my property, as the cost of a righteous shooting is greater than my deductable*.
The above calculus goes right out the window in a crisis situation such as Katrina where depriving someone of property (water, food, firearms, medicine, etc.) is equivalent to killing or deadly injury. My response in this case would not be a proper accounting of property loss to report to State Farm.
Balog also presents an interesting situation, where the property in question can be used for deadly purposes. Does the owner of tons of ammonium nitrate let the thief drive off unmolested to go off to plan and execute another OK City?
* This is the prudent course of action, though it is the immoral course, since the thief will likely steal from my neighbor in the future. So much for loving my neighbor as I love myself. As many have deomstrated in this very thread, our culture has degenerated to the point that the moral response is frowned upon by most.
fjolnirsson
Member
SMLE nailed it. I was going to post exactly this, but now I don't need to.
To go one step farther, if my vehicle were to be stolen, I have no way to replace it. Were I to have full coverage, the replacement money would not be enough to purchase a running vehicle. Without a running vehicle, I have no way to get to work. I live in a rural area, where there is no public transit. So, if a man is stealing my truck, he's stealing the food from my daughter's mouth, and the heat to keep her warm. To me, that warrants a little more concern than yelling out the window, "please don't steal my truck, Mr. bad man!".
Not saying anyone should shoot another person lightly. Just that there's more to this decision than property and monetary value.
XDKingslayer
member
I find two things here extremely hypocritical, especially coming from this place.
First is how it supports the 2nd Amendment, yet craps on the first by telling us what we can and can't say. Yes, I understand this is a private forum and how the owners and moderators make the decisions, and blah, blah, blah....this isn't my first forum. But it's still pretty hypocritical.
Second is that how many people here threaten violence if the government tries to take their guns or have Molon Labe in their signatures, yet agree with this new rule. Why would you threaten violence if the gov tried to take your guns? Their just "stuff" right? Just like how you all say it's improper to shoot someone taking your stuff, and how it's just "stuff", but oh no, not if it's your guns. The criminals can take my car and that's ok, but if the gov tries to take my guns, then the bullets fly!
Make up my mind.
And then you have the nerve to talk down about the people who post these kinds of things and how they are nothing but internet commandos, yet not a one of you have shot at a politician lately, and the last time I checked, they're still trying to take your guns. I don't see any of you 2nd amendment commandos capping Brady Bunch members.
Pot..meet kettle. I guess that's three hypocrosies.
First is how it supports the 2nd Amendment, yet craps on the first by telling us what we can and can't say. Yes, I understand this is a private forum and how the owners and moderators make the decisions, and blah, blah, blah....this isn't my first forum. But it's still pretty hypocritical.
Second is that how many people here threaten violence if the government tries to take their guns or have Molon Labe in their signatures, yet agree with this new rule. Why would you threaten violence if the gov tried to take your guns? Their just "stuff" right? Just like how you all say it's improper to shoot someone taking your stuff, and how it's just "stuff", but oh no, not if it's your guns. The criminals can take my car and that's ok, but if the gov tries to take my guns, then the bullets fly!
Make up my mind.
And then you have the nerve to talk down about the people who post these kinds of things and how they are nothing but internet commandos, yet not a one of you have shot at a politician lately, and the last time I checked, they're still trying to take your guns. I don't see any of you 2nd amendment commandos capping Brady Bunch members.
Pot..meet kettle. I guess that's three hypocrosies.
Cute, but tell it to the judge and jury, then see what their response would be...
"Yer Honor, I stand by my convictions that a stolen VCR is indeed worth the taking of a human life, or at least the 8 hours of overtime it cost me to buy the darned thing. Since I didn't know which of his 8 lifetime hours to take in exchange with my home defense gun, I took them all, had to be safe, ya know..."
My God, people, do you hear yourself saying this stuff when you're typing it into an online forum? Again, I'd love to see that twisted bit of logic stand up in the defendant's arguments both in the criminal court case, and the civil court case later. If your lawyer is smart, he'll keep you off the stand if only to save your bacon. Otherwise, Bubba the Cellmate may end up stealing several hours of your time as a result, but he'll be nice and leave you alive, if just to rent you out to others as a timeshare. :banghead:
"Yer Honor, I stand by my convictions that a stolen VCR is indeed worth the taking of a human life, or at least the 8 hours of overtime it cost me to buy the darned thing. Since I didn't know which of his 8 lifetime hours to take in exchange with my home defense gun, I took them all, had to be safe, ya know..."
My God, people, do you hear yourself saying this stuff when you're typing it into an online forum? Again, I'd love to see that twisted bit of logic stand up in the defendant's arguments both in the criminal court case, and the civil court case later. If your lawyer is smart, he'll keep you off the stand if only to save your bacon. Otherwise, Bubba the Cellmate may end up stealing several hours of your time as a result, but he'll be nice and leave you alive, if just to rent you out to others as a timeshare. :banghead:
Carl N. Brown
Member
The British Crown Prosecution Services brochure on
UK citizen's rights in using force against intruders
OKs the use of force or "anything at hand" as a
weapon against intruders; including lethal force
if a reasonable person would be in fear of life.
On the subject of suspect fleeing with property,
the UK CPS supports "reasonable" less-than lethal force
including tackling or punching to recover stolen
propertty. And that is "candy-A UK"
I do not advocate unreasonable use of lethal force:
I despise the "shoot first ask questions later" rhetoic,
but criminals fear being shot by a victim more than anything
else: armed self-defense is the first deterrent to crime.
We should not lose that by going overboard in either
direction: too little or too much.
UK citizen's rights in using force against intruders
OKs the use of force or "anything at hand" as a
weapon against intruders; including lethal force
if a reasonable person would be in fear of life.
On the subject of suspect fleeing with property,
the UK CPS supports "reasonable" less-than lethal force
including tackling or punching to recover stolen
propertty. And that is "candy-A UK"
I do not advocate unreasonable use of lethal force:
I despise the "shoot first ask questions later" rhetoic,
but criminals fear being shot by a victim more than anything
else: armed self-defense is the first deterrent to crime.
We should not lose that by going overboard in either
direction: too little or too much.
You defend yourself and your family against a threat. Period.
Correia and others have made that abundantly clear, many times here on THR. You don't just "kill 'em because they're in your house". I've been down that road, and would've been rightfully charged with murder or manslaughter at the least had I dropped the 1911 hammer on the neighbor's brain-damaged kid who walked into our home one evening. Castle Doctrine or not, the kid communicated no threat, and simply being in my doorway wasn't enough reason to drop him where he stood. It took a split-second to figure he wasn't the Boogie Man, nor was he armed, nor was he threatening anybody. He was simply there, breathing, and probably another few minutes away from his daily Grand Mal seizures.
Make no mistakes, I'll defend my family against perceived threats, to include deadly force with firearms. But the Castle Doctrine is no carte blanche excuse to indiscriminately kill trespassers. Those who are fortunate enough to live in a state that has adopted the Castle Doctrine laws no longer need to retreat from the threat while in their homes. That's a Good Thing, but it doesn't mean they can spray bullets at whatever "goes bump in the night" without fear of prosecution.
What's worse is that we have people who normally are respected in the 2A/gun community parroting the "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mentality, as if it were the only option available in a home defense situation. The Keyboard Kommandos are growing in number, and apparently, in Internet stature. They're not really helping our cause, and all the work we do to keep gun owners from appearing like bloodthirsty killers to the antigun crowd goes right out the door. That's a sad commentary, and it definitely makes me wary of at least one certain blogger after he posted this gem, even if his excuse is he's an immigrant who's adopted the Texican way of life:
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos-shared/comments/9522/
BTW, XDKingslayer, just how many politicians have you shot or threatened to shoot, specifically? You won't see much of that discussion here on THR, either, because those humorless Secret Service folks, among others, would take a dim view of it. It's called "communicating a threat", and they will indeed look into it. So keep talking about killing politicians and political activists, ok? Just don't do it here on THR, I've grown rather fond of the place and would like to see it stay online. You're probably looking for www.AR-15.com down the Internet a few doors. Likewise, calling THR members hypocrites isn't exactly highroad. Remember the "attack the argument, not the author" rule here? Regardless, it's a rather broad paintbrush you painted THR folk with. Relatively few of us actually profess that they will unleash a hail of bullets when the goons come for our guns. The rest of us know better, because the dreaded knock on the door is simply a diversionary tactic to expose the shiny tinfoiled heads to the main U.N. Blue Helmet force - waiting down the street with the APC and heavy artillery to return overwhelming fire. Slipped out the back, we did - tilting at windmills is just a wee bit passe'.
Correia and others have made that abundantly clear, many times here on THR. You don't just "kill 'em because they're in your house". I've been down that road, and would've been rightfully charged with murder or manslaughter at the least had I dropped the 1911 hammer on the neighbor's brain-damaged kid who walked into our home one evening. Castle Doctrine or not, the kid communicated no threat, and simply being in my doorway wasn't enough reason to drop him where he stood. It took a split-second to figure he wasn't the Boogie Man, nor was he armed, nor was he threatening anybody. He was simply there, breathing, and probably another few minutes away from his daily Grand Mal seizures.
Make no mistakes, I'll defend my family against perceived threats, to include deadly force with firearms. But the Castle Doctrine is no carte blanche excuse to indiscriminately kill trespassers. Those who are fortunate enough to live in a state that has adopted the Castle Doctrine laws no longer need to retreat from the threat while in their homes. That's a Good Thing, but it doesn't mean they can spray bullets at whatever "goes bump in the night" without fear of prosecution.
What's worse is that we have people who normally are respected in the 2A/gun community parroting the "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mentality, as if it were the only option available in a home defense situation. The Keyboard Kommandos are growing in number, and apparently, in Internet stature. They're not really helping our cause, and all the work we do to keep gun owners from appearing like bloodthirsty killers to the antigun crowd goes right out the door. That's a sad commentary, and it definitely makes me wary of at least one certain blogger after he posted this gem, even if his excuse is he's an immigrant who's adopted the Texican way of life:
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos-shared/comments/9522/
BTW, XDKingslayer, just how many politicians have you shot or threatened to shoot, specifically? You won't see much of that discussion here on THR, either, because those humorless Secret Service folks, among others, would take a dim view of it. It's called "communicating a threat", and they will indeed look into it. So keep talking about killing politicians and political activists, ok? Just don't do it here on THR, I've grown rather fond of the place and would like to see it stay online. You're probably looking for www.AR-15.com down the Internet a few doors. Likewise, calling THR members hypocrites isn't exactly highroad. Remember the "attack the argument, not the author" rule here? Regardless, it's a rather broad paintbrush you painted THR folk with. Relatively few of us actually profess that they will unleash a hail of bullets when the goons come for our guns. The rest of us know better, because the dreaded knock on the door is simply a diversionary tactic to expose the shiny tinfoiled heads to the main U.N. Blue Helmet force - waiting down the street with the APC and heavy artillery to return overwhelming fire. Slipped out the back, we did - tilting at windmills is just a wee bit passe'.
SkyDaver
Member
First Amendment concepts
XDKingSlayer wrote:
Restrictions on what is written in this forum is in no way "crapping" on the First Amendment. The restrictions stated here are NOT a restriction imposed by the government. If you want to start a Strategies and Tactics forum where anything goes, pay for your own site.
XDKingSlayer wrote:
Restrictions on what is written in this forum is in no way "crapping" on the First Amendment. The restrictions stated here are NOT a restriction imposed by the government. If you want to start a Strategies and Tactics forum where anything goes, pay for your own site.
XDKingslayer
member
Reread my post...
middlechainringguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 34
Thanks, people
Jeff et al., thanks for this. This is the kind of community of which I'm glad to be a part.
Jeff et al., thanks for this. This is the kind of community of which I'm glad to be a part.
CoachVince
Member
I haven't posted, or even been by for awhile. I'm certainly not the biggest activist for 2A rights, though I try to influence others when I can. But I'm glad to come back through and see this sticky, especially...
A lot of discussions that we see...the ones that go south...are similar to discussing a stop light on a country road at three in the morning. The law states that I must stop. There are a bunch of reasons why I shouldn't have to, or might not want to. I will either stop or not, but no amount of discussing will change the fact that it is unlawful to proceed.
I've seen discussions, on other boards (and occasionally on this one), of poaching, outright murder, and altering evidence. I got tired of seeing thoughtful discussions spiral down into threats and boasts. I used to mention this board to people who were curious abut firearms; I think I can start doing that again.
Thanks, Jeff.
A lot of discussions that we see...the ones that go south...are similar to discussing a stop light on a country road at three in the morning. The law states that I must stop. There are a bunch of reasons why I shouldn't have to, or might not want to. I will either stop or not, but no amount of discussing will change the fact that it is unlawful to proceed.
I've seen discussions, on other boards (and occasionally on this one), of poaching, outright murder, and altering evidence. I got tired of seeing thoughtful discussions spiral down into threats and boasts. I used to mention this board to people who were curious abut firearms; I think I can start doing that again.
Thanks, Jeff.
Terrierman
Member
I'm with you Jeff and I'm damned glad you're taking the stand you are.
Lawyerman
Member
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Sir Edmund Burke
"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default, it is only by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principals"
Ayn Rand
I find it interesting that New York City, long regarded as a cesspool of human filth and criminality was turned around in large measure by one simple act. Mayor Guiliani's NO TOLERANCE for ANY criminal act. Take a leak in Times Square....you're going to jail. Grafitti someone's place of business....go to jail. Spit on the sidewalk....you get the picture. Only when there are consequences for peoples' actions will they take them seriously and consider whether the risk is worth the reward. Take a look sometime at the "cleared by arrest" rate for property crimes in your city and tell me if a smart person, evil- but smart, might rationally consider that CRIME DOES PAY. Apparently tens of thousands of people have made that calculation as it is a growth industry!
Sir Edmund Burke
"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default, it is only by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principals"
Ayn Rand
I find it interesting that New York City, long regarded as a cesspool of human filth and criminality was turned around in large measure by one simple act. Mayor Guiliani's NO TOLERANCE for ANY criminal act. Take a leak in Times Square....you're going to jail. Grafitti someone's place of business....go to jail. Spit on the sidewalk....you get the picture. Only when there are consequences for peoples' actions will they take them seriously and consider whether the risk is worth the reward. Take a look sometime at the "cleared by arrest" rate for property crimes in your city and tell me if a smart person, evil- but smart, might rationally consider that CRIME DOES PAY. Apparently tens of thousands of people have made that calculation as it is a growth industry!
I must say I don't quite understand this new rule. Of course this is someone elses sandbox so their rules apply regardless. However, with no shortage of pics and posters portraying people ready to shoot law enforcement officers that have not properly executed a warrant, or government officials that are trying to repeal gun ownership, there is a complete contradiction. Even with the pic posted just the other day of a mom and her smiling two kids, the implication is clear... simply that evil people are going to get shot. I have no problem with this message. But then to turn around and say to people that don't have any aversion to legally defending their family and property where allowed that is not proper just doesn't square.
Whether you would shoot some guy for stealing your car is a debatable subject. However in some jurisdictions it is a legal thing to do. How do you justify making speech on a legal subject prohibited.
Whether you would shoot some guy for stealing your car is a debatable subject. However in some jurisdictions it is a legal thing to do. How do you justify making speech on a legal subject prohibited.
crowbardog
Member
I completely agree with Jeff's original posting and this decision. We need to show ourselves as being responsible, not irresponsible. Comments that joke about using firearms to do injury to fellow humans do little to help our common cause. After all, we are trying to show the anti crowd that most gun owners aren't the "shoot first, ask questions later" type.
Those JOKES might be worth a laugh while watching a football game with some buddies. Just don't leave it posted on the Internet to be misinterpreted by whatever yahoo that happens to surf on by.
Mike Miller
Those JOKES might be worth a laugh while watching a football game with some buddies. Just don't leave it posted on the Internet to be misinterpreted by whatever yahoo that happens to surf on by.
Mike Miller
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
