so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead
and then know1 and I asked if you think a wallet is worth more than human life and you said 'yes'.
I can attack someone without a weapon. Of course when you promote guns the attacker will most likely have a gun.
to clarify a bit; if a bloke is twice my size and wanting to do me bodily harm; his hands are a weapon. it never happened but i'm illistrating. i knife is a weapon. you have a higher chance of dying from a knife wound than from a gunshot.
i believe i said "in a word; yes". there's a difference. i assumed you were under the impression that the attacker had a weapon as i stated earlier. if someone tried to take my wallet; i'd bitch slap them and hold them for the police. the wallet itself is not worth a life; but if someone thinks they will attack me and do bodily harm; it is worth their life. you seem to be forgetting the crime of ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON in our talk. stealing a wallet isn't the big crime. as i've been relentlessly trying to point out:
1) if someone attacks me with a deadly weapon; i will respond.
2) there are many different areas in this vast country that are totally different than others. the way we live here is totally inappropriate for NYC; however; the way one lives in NYC is also totally inappropriate act here.
i guess i wrongly assumed you knew i meant if an urban kid attacked; i implied "with a weapon".
i need to choose my words better in the future. i was saving typing time and trying not to be repetative but i guess i was misunderstood. i apologise for that.
so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead.
Killing teens over a wallet. Sounds like onelongsong is quite the humanitarian.
So your wallet and car are worth more than human life?
in a word; yes.
i have no problem killing some scum that attacks me.
A wallet and car are worth more than human life. And he doesn't even have a problem with it. Killing a rotten kid, a walk in the park.
an eye for an eye
Theft = death penalty. This was, by the way, his reply when I asked him if he was a Christian. Yay Jesus!
killing your first person is hard. especially if you look into their eyes. but after that it isn't that bad. when you exterminate vermin; you do society a favour.
Vermin, he admits he has no problem killing punk kids, he considers them vermin and he thinks he's doing society a favour. Well tell that to the 16-year-old thug's mother.
Oh I understand human nature alright.
Is a wallet worth more than a human life?
In a word; yes.
The most expensive wallet I've ever seen was $125. A human life is worth less.
What's your interpretation Jeanie?
I'm trying.
Ah yes, it's a wonderful world isn't it. Do I have to post some Darfur pictures? Or kids in Iraq? Or how about the story that was on the news yesterday? A mother killed her 5 children.
I'm doing my best to change it. Too bad the people I'm trying to help are the same vermin onelongsong has no problem killing.
It certainly can. How big of an attempt does a person make to understand someone when he shoots that person.
Originally Posted by onelongsong i understand.i get a little caught up in the moment and don't choose my words wisely..............the average citizen should not carry a gun.
I could go through the whole thread and point out quotes that onelongsong has made that you seem to have missed that could tell a different story. But I'm sensing, maybe incorrectly, that isn't what you are looking for.
I don't need pics of world horror thanks, I've seen them. And probably will continue to see them in my life. If I could work out how to post photo links, maybe I should post you some positive and happy images of good people doing good things in the world. And lets face it, there are more doing good than bad, because society is still functioning. Again with perspective.
I think it's great that you are trying to help troubled kids. They need all the help they can get. Onelongsong has also helped troubled kids.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that life is about choices?
EVEN if you have the odds stacked against you?
And that if you perpertrate violence against someone for whatever reason, that you can't always be guaranteed that you aren't going to get a violent reaction? That's human nature. And unless you are in the situation, unless it is happening to you, then how can you judge what you would do? Or how the situation is going to pan out?
i didn't miss it. i firmly believe it. untrained people with guns is rediculous. but to a trained and qualified person; a gun is a tool.
the initial discussion took place when someone mentioned that someone other than hunters should be in charge of eliminating infectous vermin. i said the hunters because to hunt prairie dogs; you need to be extremely skilled. you have to put a bullet in an area the size of coin from 100 to 200 yards. so someone this accurate is most qualified.
i'm not sure what started my other rant but i don't think the average person should carry a gun. from what i see on the tele; a lot of cops shouldn't carry a gun. if you can't hit your target every time; you shouldn't carry a gun. if you don't have the intelligence to refrain from firing when you have doubt about hitting your target; you shouldn't carry a gun.
i didn't miss it. i firmly believe it. untrained people with guns is rediculous. but to a trained and qualified person; a gun is a tool.
the initial discussion took place when someone mentioned that someone other than hunters should be in charge of eliminating infectous vermin. i said the hunters because to hunt prairie dogs; you need to be extremely skilled. you have to put a bullet in an area the size of coin from 100 to 200 yards. so someone this accurate is most qualified.
i'm not sure what started my other rant but i don't think the average person should carry a gun. from what i see on the tele; a lot of cops shouldn't carry a gun. if you can't hit your target every time; you shouldn't carry a gun. if you don't have the intelligence to refrain from firing when you have doubt about hitting your target; you shouldn't carry a gun.
So this guy that the NRA has banned? Do you think he has a point?
Seeing as how we've pretty much removed all the semi automatic weapons from the general population here, and we aren't as a nation, big gun owners anyway, the average person here probably hasn't even seen a gun in real life. Because that is my experience I find 2 things difficult to wrap my head around with America and guns.
1) The sheer amount of private gun ownership and the attitude to guns, which seems to be that everyone needs to have one.
Look, if you can't follow along, don't jump in and muddy the water.
You quote me where I pointed out the misunderstanding but COMPLETELY missed the point.
So I re-stated the misunderstanding and put the key word in CAPS for emphasis.
Go back about a page and a half, read slowly and in order, and you might figure it out.
Yes, you should be against guns and violence. You don't have the temperament for communicating well with people. It would only end terribly.
Now if you feel better about being horrid to me, yet again, I suggest you go play on the road!
No point trying to understand you clearly, you are all about judgement.
There we go, managed to get me to sink to your level. Congratulations.
So this guy that the NRA has banned? Do you think he has a point?
Seeing as how we've pretty much removed all the semi automatic weapons from the general population here, and we aren't as a nation, big gun owners anyway, the average person here probably hasn't even seen a gun in real life. Because that is my experience I find 2 things difficult to wrap my head around with America and guns.
1) The sheer amount of private gun ownership and the attitude to guns, which seems to be that everyone needs to have one.
2) The amount of power wielded by the NRA.
where i grew up; you did need guns. and still do. if you've got a fox eating your chooks; it must be eliminated. if you have a coyote problem; a gun is the only solution. same with mountain lions attacking livestock.
i know nothing about the NRA really so i can't comment.
Yes, you should be against guns and violence. You don't have the temperament for communicating well with people. It would only end terribly.
Now if you feel better about being horrid to me, yet again, I suggest you go play on the road!
No point trying to understand you clearly, you are all about judgement.
There we go, managed to get me to sink to your level. Congratulations.
That's your interpretation. I was just stating the facts. You've really confused the conversation by not paying attention.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
where i grew up; you did need guns. and still do. if you've got a fox eating your chooks; it must be eliminated. if you have a coyote problem; a gun is the only solution. same with mountain lions attacking livestock.
Yeah, I understand that. But how is an automatic weapon better than a normal gun? I'm not disputing that you need guns in rural areas. Absolutely you do but the original post was about the guy that said semi automatic weapons and automatic weapons are unecessary for hunting. I would think that I agree with him, BUT I don't have to hunt, so just wondered.
That's your interpretation. I was just stating the facts. You've really confused the conversation by not paying attention.
Because I questioned a quote that you made where you didn't identify the poster and because I didn't understand your point? Right. Well it's a bit hard if you're not going to post properly. Guess this confusing the conversation thing I'm supposedly responsible for is contagious!
The NRA didn't "ban" the talk show host. The programs sponsors started pulling out. At that point the network bails on him
As far as power wielded by the NRA, the power they have is in lobbying and campaigning. They get their power from the number of members and member contributions. So if they weren't doing something that resonated with a significant number of people, they wouldn't have nearly as much influence as they do. Thy have a louder voice than I do on an issue I care about, so I'm glad they exist. Much the same way that I'm glad the ACLU exists.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Powerful lobby group? Dedicated to shooters rights? Nothing?
Sorry, I'm just curious about them.
They are definitely a powerful lobby group. They also do a lot of eduction for hunters, self-defense, shooting sports, law enforcement, etc... They sponsor events, help train olympic shooters, provide legal help in firearms issues, etc...
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The NRA didn't "ban" the talk show host. The programs sponsors started pulling out. At that point the network bails on him
As far as power wielded by the NRA, the power they have is in lobbying and campaigning. They get their power from the number of members and member contributions. So if they weren't doing something that resonated with a significant number of people, they wouldn't have nearly as much influence as they do. Thy have a louder voice than I do on an issue I care about, so I'm glad they exist. Much the same way that I'm glad the ACLU exists.
Thanks jeff. That all makes sense. Sorry, what's the ACLU?
Thanks jeff. That all makes sense. Sorry, what's the ACLU?
American Civil Liberties Union. Here's a link: http://www.aclu.org. They do a lot of work protecting issues of free speech, unlawful search and siezure, civil forfeiture, privacy issues, etc... They are quick to provide legal aid in cases against government abuse of power at all levels. It tends to be a left-leaning organization and the NRA tends to be a right-leaning organization. I personally don't care which way either leans as long as they're keeping watch on the gov't.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
They are definitely a powerful lobby group. They also do a lot of eduction for hunters, self-defense, shooting sports, law enforcement, etc... They sponsor events, help train olympic shooters, provide legal help in firearms issues, etc...
So much the same as here I suspect. Well except that it's not as big a group.
So doesn't wield a huge amount of power. Vocal but not necessarily powerful with lobbying. But they are dealing with different laws and culture here.
American Civil Liberties Union. Here's a link: http://www.aclu.org. They do a lot of work protecting issues of free speech, unlawful search and siezure, civil forfeiture, privacy issues, etc... They are quick to provide legal aid in cases against government abuse of power at all levels. It tends to be a left-leaning organization and the NRA tends to be a right-leaning organization. I personally don't care which way either leans as long as they're keeping watch on the gov't.
Excellent! Thank you!
Not sure we have anything like that here. Well we do but I think they've been rendered impotent by our current government, much like everything else.
Nope, I didn't miss it. He posted that after all those other things. He's constantly changing little things in his post. First it was 'when someone tries to rob me' then it was 'attack with a weapon', then 'attack with a weapon and tries to do bodily harm'...
I could go through the whole thread and point out quotes that onelongsong has made that you seem to have missed that could tell a different story. But I'm sensing, maybe incorrectly, that isn't what you are looking for.
Please show me those quotes.
I don't need pics of world horror thanks, I've seen them. And probably will continue to see them in my life. If I could work out how to post photo links, maybe I should post you some positive and happy images of good people doing good things in the world. And lets face it, there are more doing good than bad, because society is still functioning. Again with perspective.
Society is working fine:
"purse snatchers and petty criminals strung out on drugs beat old ladies...kick them, punch them and toss them to the ground breaking bones, causing hideous injury and sometimes even frightening them into an early grave. "
I think it's great that you are trying to help troubled kids. They need all the help they can get. Onelongsong has also helped troubled kids.
You know I find that hard to believe. He says he helps the poor and disadvantaged children, donates to humanitarian causes etc. But when a poor, disadvantaged kid with a knife wants his wallet he was no problem killing him mercilessly? He said he or his family donate millions of dollars every year to charity, but he'd kill a kid? For someone who gives millions of dollars it would seem rather weird that they are reluctant to give their waller which holds ... a few hundred dollars max, but more likely 20 or 50 dollars.
After you have given him your money, you go to the police and describe the person, report it. You don't kill the kid.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that life is about choices?
It's not difficult to understand, the choices some people make are difficult to understand, taking a life (of a person not vermin) or giving a few dollars.
EVEN if you have the odds stacked against you?
And that if you perpertrate violence against someone for whatever reason, that you can't always be guaranteed that you aren't going to get a violent reaction? That's human nature.
Is death the appropriate response? Because it seems like you're condoning killing people. A guy started a fight with me because I spilled beer over him, by accident. Would it have been ok for me to kill him?
I guess there's no need for police, courts, the law... we'll all take justice into our own hands.
And unless you are in the situation, unless it is happening to you, then how can you judge what you would do? Or how the situation is going to pan out?
There are a couple of things that seem to work for me. The last thing on my mind is killing a person. It seems to be the first thing on onelongsong's. If I'd killed everyone that ever attacked me, I would have killed over a dozen people.
Nope, I didn't miss it. He posted that after all those other things. He's constantly changing little things in his post. First it was 'when someone tries to rob me' then it was 'attack with a weapon', then 'attack with a weapon and tries to do bodily harm'...
Please show me those quotes.
Society is working fine:
"purse snatchers and petty criminals strung out on drugs beat old ladies...kick them, punch them and toss them to the ground breaking bones, causing hideous injury and sometimes even frightening them into an early grave. "
You know I find that hard to believe. He says he helps the poor and disadvantaged children, donates to humanitarian causes etc. But when a poor, disadvantaged kid with a knife wants his wallet he was no problem killing him mercilessly? He said he or his family donate millions of dollars every year to charity, but he'd kill a kid? For someone who gives millions of dollars it would seem rather weird that they are reluctant to give their waller which holds ... a few hundred dollars max, but more likely 20 or 50 dollars.
After you have given him your money, you go to the police and describe the person, report it. You don't kill the kid.
It's not difficult to understand, the choices some people make are difficult to understand, taking a life (of a person not vermin) or giving a few dollars.
Is death the appropriate response? Because it seems like you're condoning killing people. A guy started a fight with me because I spilled beer over him, by accident. Would it have been ok for me to kill him?
I guess there's no need for police, courts, the law... we'll all take justice into our own hands.
There are a couple of things that seem to work for me. The last thing on my mind is killing a person. It seems to be the first thing on onelongsong's. If I'd killed everyone that ever attacked me, I would have killed over a dozen people.
You know what? This is getting too hard.
You don't know me. Just as I don't know you.
All I'm saying is that if someone attacks then they shouldn't expect to always come away the victor. People get sick and tired of being put upon by individuals that CHOOSE to live their lives by inflicting their shit on others, whatever their circumstance. There's nothing to say that the victim has had any less a hard life than the perpertrator.
And if someone who has been attacked before is now prepared to fight back, then why is that so difficult to comprehend? If you are going quietly about your life and individuals decide to continually inflict their will on you with violence, then sooner or later, you are going to question why this is happening and what you can do to protect yourself and prevent it next time.
REGARDLESS of whether guns are available to you or not.
This whole thread is supposed to be about a guy who has made comments about automatic weapons, that is now seeing the consequences or reaction to his comments.
How it has become all about whether or not onelongsong is a good person really is a tangent that was unnecessary to take.
This is a message board, so people can quite easily misconstrue each others intent and meaning. And as we don't have the benefit of all the extra knowledge that one gets from knowing someone in reality, it is probably a good rule of thumb to assume that people mean no harm or offense, or even that they could be very different in real life. Because we don't have all the information here.
I CHOOSE to believe that there are no bad people in the world only BAD deeds.
All I'm saying is that if someone attacks then they shouldn't expect to always come away the victor. People get sick and tired of being put upon by individuals that CHOOSE to live their lives by inflicting their shit on others, whatever their circumstance. There's nothing to say that the victim has had any less a hard life than the perpertrator.
Not, I'd be glad if they didn't come out the victor, but death?
You don't choose poverty. I've met plenty of people who tried very very hard to cut it with a legitimate job, but couldn't. These are good people but sooner or later these people will also start to think why this is happening why they can't survive even though they are good hard working people, they start to wonder why the people who discriminated against them get to become rich etc. And some of them end up in a downward spiral. And if a person has fallen that low, reach out to them don't shoot them. Teach them, don't shoot them, punish them, don't shoot them. It's not hard to do.
And if someone who has been attacked before is now prepared to fight back, then why is that so difficult to comprehend?
It's not, I never said it was. I have difficulty why they choose to use deadly force. There are ways of protecting you without deadly force, even a gun could be used without shooting to kill.
This whole thread is supposed to be about a guy who has made comments about automatic weapons, that is now seeing the consequences or reaction to his comments.
How it has become all about whether or not onelongsong is a good person really is a tangent that was unnecessary to take.
When people say they have no problem shooting kids, I respond.
it is probably a good rule of thumb to assume that people mean no harm or offense, or even that they could be very different in real life. Because we don't have all the information here.
I'm going with the information that is given to me and when a person says the things onelongsong said, it's a bit more difficult to assume he means no harm.
I CHOOSE to believe that there are no bad people in the world only BAD deeds.
Funny. Me too, that's why I consider robbery, carjacking ... mistakes that shouldn't be punished by death.
to clarify a bit; if a bloke is twice my size and wanting to do me bodily harm; his hands are a weapon. it never happened but i'm illistrating. i knife is a weapon. you have a higher chance of dying from a knife wound than from a gunshot.
so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead.
I was supposed to interpret "a kid" as a bloke twice your size who wants to do you bodily harm?
i believe i said "in a word; yes". there's a difference.
A whole world of difference there.
i assumed you were under the impression that the attacker had a weapon as i stated earlier. if someone tried to take my wallet; i'd bitch slap them and hold them for the police.
I'm glad you wouldn't just shoot him dead.
1) if someone attacks me with a deadly weapon; i will respond.
I'm sure it's been said before, but this thread is quite a few pages long and I don't feel like reading the entire thing.
I'm sorry if I'm repeating any former remarks:
Just as a HUNTING rifle is intended for HUNTING, an ASSAULT rifle is intended for ASSAULT. I firmly believe that assault rifles should not be mass produced or in any way available to the general public. There is no reason for ANYONE to own an assault rifle...and it certainly isn't logical for those who intend to abide laws.
It is illegal to own an assault rifle in my state. It is also illegal to own a gun if you have a criminal record. Gun laws in the state of NJ are known to be some of the most strict in the world.
Ironically enough, I could travel to the city with the highest crime rate in New Jersey and buy an assault rifle for less than $100. I know people who have done this and OWN assault rifles...with what intention? I'll tell you this much...they're not outdoorsmen, nor are they NRA members.
The truth of the matter is that strict gun laws can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals because these types of guns are still being mass produced. Since the people that we have to be worried about ARE criminal in nature, we know full well that they are perfectly capable of breaking into homes of non criminals to steal weapons, selling them to other criminals, and killing people with them. This shit happens more than anyone would care to think, especially the NRA. Some people need to swallow their pride a bit and take a look at the dark world outside of small town America.
assault weapons for hunting seems like overkill to me. doesn't such a firearm take away the requirement of any skill needed that is necessary for hunting?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You don't choose poverty. I've met plenty of people who tried very very hard to cut it with a legitimate job, but couldn't. These are good people but sooner or later these people will also start to think why this is happening why they can't survive even though they are good hard working people, they start to wonder why the people who discriminated against them get to become rich etc. And some of them end up in a downward spiral. And if a person has fallen that low, reach out to them don't shoot them. Teach them, don't shoot them, punish them, don't shoot them. It's not hard to do.
Please don't lecture me about poverty and downward spirals.
I understand these issues, probably better than you think. But people, even people who are in appalling circumstances can still make choices. If you are being held up at gun point or violently by someone who is desperate, this energy passes from the desperate instigator to the victim. And they will respond. Things escalate. When you are frightened for your life I can't see you stopping, taking a deep breath and reaching out to soothe your attacker. Some people maybe. Not everybody. And why should they? All I'm saying is why expect this? If you don't want to be shot or injured by someone you attack, then don't attack. And I wouldn't pressume to judge someone who was attacked and did respond with force. Even deadly force. They will have to live with the ramifications of their actions. And the ramifications of their trauma. Not a particularly pleasant thing to go through. So do I think it's ok for someone to lose their life for attempting to rob someone even of only their wallet? No. Does it happen? Yes. Do I feel the need to crucify the victim for their actions? No. They'll have enough to deal with. Is it sad for a petty criminal to die this way? Yes. Each circumstance should be looked at and judged individually though. All I'm saying is when humans interact with desperation things can get out of control very quickly.
It's not, I never said it was. I have difficulty why they choose to use deadly force. There are ways of protecting you without deadly force, even a gun could be used without shooting to kill.
Collin I don't own a gun, don't want to own a gun. Guns have the potential to kill people. In a desperate situation that is what can happen. People aren't trained to shoot to disarm they are trained to shoot at body mass. That can prove deadly. BUT then if I was in a desperate struggle with someone and I felt my life was in danger who knows what I would do to neutralize a threat. A rock could be just as deadly. Even people who shoot to neutralize a threat may not be intending to kill. Just stop the threat. Again each circumstance on it's merits.
I'm going with the information that is given to me and when a person says the things onelongsong said, it's a bit more difficult to assume he means no harm.
Well perhaps you haven't read other posts of his. So I can see why you might assume this. From some of the things he said. Perhaps you might consider giving him some of the benefit of the doubt that you would like us to have for the perpertrators. Then we might all actually manage some understanding.
Funny. Me too, that's why I consider robbery, carjacking ... mistakes that shouldn't be punished by death.
They shouldn't but this is not a perfect world. Sometimes they are. Robbery and carjacking can be terrifying for the victims. Should they respond, when they feel their life is threatened by hugging the perpertraitor and saying it's ok, pistol whip me, bash me, take my property, shoot me if you must, I bear you no ill will? If they are frightened for their lives, this could prove rather difficult. AND the onus is not on them to do so. The onus is on the perpertraitor to NOT attack in the first place.
Do you consider the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution? If so, someone needs to have a word with your con law prof. beause he's doing his students a grave disservice.
Sorry. Just a silly question, but can't you amend the Bill of Rights?
Sorry. Just a silly question, but can't you amend the Bill of Rights?
Yes, but there is absolutely no way it's going to happen with the Second Amendment (or any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights), at least not in our lifetimes.
"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority."
I'm sure it's been said before, but this thread is quite a few pages long and I don't feel like reading the entire thing.
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Our comments are not worthy or relevant enough for you to take the time to read them, but we should read yours? No offense to you, personally, I just see this in a lot of threads and wonder why that is.
Many/most points in your post are repeats. We talked about what an "assault rifle" is. Why it probably doesn't mean anything. Why someone might want to use a semi-automatic, smaller caliber rifle when shooting prairie dogs. The effect on crime of an "assault weapons" ban across an entire country. The percent of crime committed using "assault rifles."
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Look Collin obviously it would be better if death wasn't the outcome but sometimes it is. I never said it was right or wrong. Just that it IS.
From what I gather death is the outcome onelongsong is going for, not just an unfortunate accident.
Please don't lecture me about poverty and downward spirals.
I understand these issues, probably better than you think. But people, even people who are in appalling circumstances can still make choices. If you are being held up at gun point or violently by someone who is desperate, this energy passes from the desperate instigator to the victim. And they will respond. Things escalate. When you are frightened for your life I can't see you stopping, taking a deep breath and reaching out to soothe your attacker. Some people maybe. Not everybody. And why should they? All I'm saying is why expect this?
Where did I say people weren't allowed to defend themselves, or use force?
If you don't want to be shot or injured by someone you attack, then don't attack.
Well the world isn't black and white.
And I wouldn't pressume to judge someone who was attacked and did respond with force. Even deadly force. They will have to live with the ramifications of their actions. And the ramifications of their trauma. Not a particularly pleasant thing to go through.
Yes, I see onelongsong has a very hard time with it.
"killing your first person is hard. especially if you look into their eyes. but after that it isn't that bad. when you exterminate vermin; you do society a favour."
It sounds like it's only a hard thing to go through once, after that it's nothing, like taking out the trash.
So do I think it's ok for someone to lose their life for attempting to rob someone even of only their wallet? No. Does it happen? Yes. Do I feel the need to crucify the victim for their actions? No.
Neither do I. But when they go about it with an attitude like onelongsong's, it fills me with disgust. I never said anything against self-defence but when your mentality is set on killing whoever crosses a certain line, I think you have serious problems.
They'll have enough to deal with. Is it sad for a petty criminal to die this way? Yes. Each circumstance should be looked at and judged individually though. All I'm saying is when humans interact with desperation things can get out of control very quickly.
Yes, I know. Things can get out of control and when you use a gun death is a likely outcome especially if that's your whole plan, killing the vermin.
Collin I don't own a gun, don't want to own a gun. Guns have the potential to kill people. In a desperate situation that is what can happen
People aren't trained to shoot to disarm they are trained to shoot at body mass. That can prove deadly.
There's a difference. You shoot to defend yourself, your main objective should be your safety, not killing your attacker. And if in protection yourself your attacker is killed so be it, you were put in an (extreme) situation where you had to rely on extreme measures. I probably won't agree with it unless there was no other option at all but hey, that's life.
BUT then if I was in a desperate struggle with someone and I felt my life was in danger who knows what I would do to neutralize a threat. A rock could be just as deadly. Even people who shoot to neutralize a threat may not be intending to kill. Just stop the threat. Again each circumstance on it's merits.
That's the point like I said. When force is necessary, your main objective should be neutralizing the threat, not killing the attacker.
Ok. Fine. But I think he has clarified himself since then. And even if he hasn't for you, I never believed that he would have no problem with it.
I have my doubts. He seems to me a very irresponsible gun owner, but what do I know, apparently there are places in the world where it's considered responsible shooting near kids and at old ladies' feet when a simple yell would have sufficed.
But then again, I think he's making a lot of stuff up. So his macho behaviour could all be an act.
Well perhaps you haven't read other posts of his. So I can see why you might assume this. From some of the things he said.
Oh I have, I haven't read many things that run counter to his statements here.
Perhaps you might consider giving him some of the benefit of the doubt that you would like us to have for the perpertrators. Then we might all actually manage some understanding.
You're right.
They shouldn't but this is not a perfect world. Sometimes they are. Robbery and carjacking can be terrifying for the victims. Should they respond, when they feel their life is threatened by hugging the perpertraitor and saying it's ok, pistol whip me, bash me, take my property, shoot me if you must, I bear you no ill will? If they are frightened for their lives, this could prove rather difficult.
No, you're right. They should fucking kill the bastards, maim them first if possible. Typical bullshit. If you have a real argument, try again.
AND the onus is not on them to do so. The onus is on the perpertraitor to NOT attack in the first place.
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Our comments are not worthy or relevant enough for you to take the time to read them, but we should read yours? No offense to you, personally, I just see this in a lot of threads and wonder why that is.
So don't read his. Anyway, most of this thread hasn't been about the original story.
Comments
to clarify a bit; if a bloke is twice my size and wanting to do me bodily harm; his hands are a weapon. it never happened but i'm illistrating. i knife is a weapon. you have a higher chance of dying from a knife wound than from a gunshot.
i believe i said "in a word; yes". there's a difference. i assumed you were under the impression that the attacker had a weapon as i stated earlier. if someone tried to take my wallet; i'd bitch slap them and hold them for the police. the wallet itself is not worth a life; but if someone thinks they will attack me and do bodily harm; it is worth their life. you seem to be forgetting the crime of ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON in our talk. stealing a wallet isn't the big crime. as i've been relentlessly trying to point out:
1) if someone attacks me with a deadly weapon; i will respond.
2) there are many different areas in this vast country that are totally different than others. the way we live here is totally inappropriate for NYC; however; the way one lives in NYC is also totally inappropriate act here.
i guess i wrongly assumed you knew i meant if an urban kid attacked; i implied "with a weapon".
i need to choose my words better in the future. i was saving typing time and trying not to be repetative but i guess i was misunderstood. i apologise for that.
Guess you missed it too?
I could go through the whole thread and point out quotes that onelongsong has made that you seem to have missed that could tell a different story. But I'm sensing, maybe incorrectly, that isn't what you are looking for.
I don't need pics of world horror thanks, I've seen them. And probably will continue to see them in my life. If I could work out how to post photo links, maybe I should post you some positive and happy images of good people doing good things in the world. And lets face it, there are more doing good than bad, because society is still functioning. Again with perspective.
I think it's great that you are trying to help troubled kids. They need all the help they can get. Onelongsong has also helped troubled kids.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that life is about choices?
EVEN if you have the odds stacked against you?
And that if you perpertrate violence against someone for whatever reason, that you can't always be guaranteed that you aren't going to get a violent reaction? That's human nature. And unless you are in the situation, unless it is happening to you, then how can you judge what you would do? Or how the situation is going to pan out?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i didn't miss it. i firmly believe it. untrained people with guns is rediculous. but to a trained and qualified person; a gun is a tool.
the initial discussion took place when someone mentioned that someone other than hunters should be in charge of eliminating infectous vermin. i said the hunters because to hunt prairie dogs; you need to be extremely skilled. you have to put a bullet in an area the size of coin from 100 to 200 yards. so someone this accurate is most qualified.
i'm not sure what started my other rant but i don't think the average person should carry a gun. from what i see on the tele; a lot of cops shouldn't carry a gun. if you can't hit your target every time; you shouldn't carry a gun. if you don't have the intelligence to refrain from firing when you have doubt about hitting your target; you shouldn't carry a gun.
And I guess you missed this (that came after your quoted piece):
"here's where you misunderstand. i NEVER SAID over a few dollars. i said attacked."
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Seeing as how we've pretty much removed all the semi automatic weapons from the general population here, and we aren't as a nation, big gun owners anyway, the average person here probably hasn't even seen a gun in real life. Because that is my experience I find 2 things difficult to wrap my head around with America and guns.
1) The sheer amount of private gun ownership and the attitude to guns, which seems to be that everyone needs to have one.
2) The amount of power wielded by the NRA.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
And? Sorry, what's your point?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Look, if you can't follow along, don't jump in and muddy the water.
You quote me where I pointed out the misunderstanding but COMPLETELY missed the point.
So I re-stated the misunderstanding and put the key word in CAPS for emphasis.
Go back about a page and a half, read slowly and in order, and you might figure it out.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yes, you should be against guns and violence. You don't have the temperament for communicating well with people. It would only end terribly.
Now if you feel better about being horrid to me, yet again, I suggest you go play on the road!
No point trying to understand you clearly, you are all about judgement.
There we go, managed to get me to sink to your level. Congratulations.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
where i grew up; you did need guns. and still do. if you've got a fox eating your chooks; it must be eliminated. if you have a coyote problem; a gun is the only solution. same with mountain lions attacking livestock.
i know nothing about the NRA really so i can't comment.
That's your interpretation. I was just stating the facts. You've really confused the conversation by not paying attention.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yeah, I understand that. But how is an automatic weapon better than a normal gun? I'm not disputing that you need guns in rural areas. Absolutely you do but the original post was about the guy that said semi automatic weapons and automatic weapons are unecessary for hunting. I would think that I agree with him, BUT I don't have to hunt, so just wondered.
Powerful lobby group? Dedicated to shooters rights? Nothing?
Sorry, I'm just curious about them.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Because I questioned a quote that you made where you didn't identify the poster and because I didn't understand your point? Right. Well it's a bit hard if you're not going to post properly. Guess this confusing the conversation thing I'm supposedly responsible for is contagious!
Facts as you see them.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Hi Jeanie,
The NRA didn't "ban" the talk show host. The programs sponsors started pulling out. At that point the network bails on him
As far as power wielded by the NRA, the power they have is in lobbying and campaigning. They get their power from the number of members and member contributions. So if they weren't doing something that resonated with a significant number of people, they wouldn't have nearly as much influence as they do. Thy have a louder voice than I do on an issue I care about, so I'm glad they exist. Much the same way that I'm glad the ACLU exists.
They are definitely a powerful lobby group. They also do a lot of eduction for hunters, self-defense, shooting sports, law enforcement, etc... They sponsor events, help train olympic shooters, provide legal help in firearms issues, etc...
Thanks jeff. That all makes sense.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
American Civil Liberties Union. Here's a link: http://www.aclu.org. They do a lot of work protecting issues of free speech, unlawful search and siezure, civil forfeiture, privacy issues, etc... They are quick to provide legal aid in cases against government abuse of power at all levels. It tends to be a left-leaning organization and the NRA tends to be a right-leaning organization. I personally don't care which way either leans as long as they're keeping watch on the gov't.
So much the same as here I suspect. Well except that it's not as big a group.
So doesn't wield a huge amount of power. Vocal but not necessarily powerful with lobbying. But they are dealing with different laws and culture here.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Excellent! Thank you!
Not sure we have anything like that here. Well we do but I think they've been rendered impotent by our current government, much like everything else.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Nope, I didn't miss it. He posted that after all those other things. He's constantly changing little things in his post. First it was 'when someone tries to rob me' then it was 'attack with a weapon', then 'attack with a weapon and tries to do bodily harm'...
Please show me those quotes.
Society is working fine:
"purse snatchers and petty criminals strung out on drugs beat old ladies...kick them, punch them and toss them to the ground breaking bones, causing hideous injury and sometimes even frightening them into an early grave. "
You know I find that hard to believe. He says he helps the poor and disadvantaged children, donates to humanitarian causes etc. But when a poor, disadvantaged kid with a knife wants his wallet he was no problem killing him mercilessly? He said he or his family donate millions of dollars every year to charity, but he'd kill a kid? For someone who gives millions of dollars it would seem rather weird that they are reluctant to give their waller which holds ... a few hundred dollars max, but more likely 20 or 50 dollars.
After you have given him your money, you go to the police and describe the person, report it. You don't kill the kid.
It's not difficult to understand, the choices some people make are difficult to understand, taking a life (of a person not vermin) or giving a few dollars.
Is death the appropriate response? Because it seems like you're condoning killing people. A guy started a fight with me because I spilled beer over him, by accident. Would it have been ok for me to kill him?
I guess there's no need for police, courts, the law... we'll all take justice into our own hands.
There are a couple of things that seem to work for me. The last thing on my mind is killing a person. It seems to be the first thing on onelongsong's. If I'd killed everyone that ever attacked me, I would have killed over a dozen people.
naděje umírá poslední
You know what? This is getting too hard.
You don't know me. Just as I don't know you.
All I'm saying is that if someone attacks then they shouldn't expect to always come away the victor. People get sick and tired of being put upon by individuals that CHOOSE to live their lives by inflicting their shit on others, whatever their circumstance. There's nothing to say that the victim has had any less a hard life than the perpertrator.
And if someone who has been attacked before is now prepared to fight back, then why is that so difficult to comprehend? If you are going quietly about your life and individuals decide to continually inflict their will on you with violence, then sooner or later, you are going to question why this is happening and what you can do to protect yourself and prevent it next time.
REGARDLESS of whether guns are available to you or not.
This whole thread is supposed to be about a guy who has made comments about automatic weapons, that is now seeing the consequences or reaction to his comments.
How it has become all about whether or not onelongsong is a good person really is a tangent that was unnecessary to take.
This is a message board, so people can quite easily misconstrue each others intent and meaning. And as we don't have the benefit of all the extra knowledge that one gets from knowing someone in reality, it is probably a good rule of thumb to assume that people mean no harm or offense, or even that they could be very different in real life. Because we don't have all the information here.
I CHOOSE to believe that there are no bad people in the world only BAD deeds.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Not, I'd be glad if they didn't come out the victor, but death?
You don't choose poverty. I've met plenty of people who tried very very hard to cut it with a legitimate job, but couldn't. These are good people but sooner or later these people will also start to think why this is happening why they can't survive even though they are good hard working people, they start to wonder why the people who discriminated against them get to become rich etc. And some of them end up in a downward spiral. And if a person has fallen that low, reach out to them don't shoot them. Teach them, don't shoot them, punish them, don't shoot them. It's not hard to do.
It's not, I never said it was. I have difficulty why they choose to use deadly force. There are ways of protecting you without deadly force, even a gun could be used without shooting to kill.
When people say they have no problem shooting kids, I respond.
I'm going with the information that is given to me and when a person says the things onelongsong said, it's a bit more difficult to assume he means no harm.
Funny. Me too, that's why I consider robbery, carjacking ... mistakes that shouldn't be punished by death.
naděje umírá poslední
so a kid in an urban area needs to know that if he tries to rob or carjack me; i will shoot him dead.
I was supposed to interpret "a kid" as a bloke twice your size who wants to do you bodily harm?
A whole world of difference there.
I'm glad you wouldn't just shoot him dead.
You choose to use deadly force.
naděje umírá poslední
I'm sorry if I'm repeating any former remarks:
Just as a HUNTING rifle is intended for HUNTING, an ASSAULT rifle is intended for ASSAULT. I firmly believe that assault rifles should not be mass produced or in any way available to the general public. There is no reason for ANYONE to own an assault rifle...and it certainly isn't logical for those who intend to abide laws.
It is illegal to own an assault rifle in my state. It is also illegal to own a gun if you have a criminal record. Gun laws in the state of NJ are known to be some of the most strict in the world.
Ironically enough, I could travel to the city with the highest crime rate in New Jersey and buy an assault rifle for less than $100. I know people who have done this and OWN assault rifles...with what intention? I'll tell you this much...they're not outdoorsmen, nor are they NRA members.
The truth of the matter is that strict gun laws can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals because these types of guns are still being mass produced. Since the people that we have to be worried about ARE criminal in nature, we know full well that they are perfectly capable of breaking into homes of non criminals to steal weapons, selling them to other criminals, and killing people with them. This shit happens more than anyone would care to think, especially the NRA. Some people need to swallow their pride a bit and take a look at the dark world outside of small town America.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Please don't lecture me about poverty and downward spirals.
I understand these issues, probably better than you think. But people, even people who are in appalling circumstances can still make choices. If you are being held up at gun point or violently by someone who is desperate, this energy passes from the desperate instigator to the victim. And they will respond. Things escalate. When you are frightened for your life I can't see you stopping, taking a deep breath and reaching out to soothe your attacker. Some people maybe. Not everybody. And why should they? All I'm saying is why expect this? If you don't want to be shot or injured by someone you attack, then don't attack. And I wouldn't pressume to judge someone who was attacked and did respond with force. Even deadly force. They will have to live with the ramifications of their actions. And the ramifications of their trauma. Not a particularly pleasant thing to go through. So do I think it's ok for someone to lose their life for attempting to rob someone even of only their wallet? No. Does it happen? Yes. Do I feel the need to crucify the victim for their actions? No. They'll have enough to deal with. Is it sad for a petty criminal to die this way? Yes. Each circumstance should be looked at and judged individually though. All I'm saying is when humans interact with desperation things can get out of control very quickly.
Collin I don't own a gun, don't want to own a gun. Guns have the potential to kill people. In a desperate situation that is what can happen. People aren't trained to shoot to disarm they are trained to shoot at body mass. That can prove deadly. BUT then if I was in a desperate struggle with someone and I felt my life was in danger who knows what I would do to neutralize a threat. A rock could be just as deadly. Even people who shoot to neutralize a threat may not be intending to kill. Just stop the threat. Again each circumstance on it's merits.
Ok. Fine. But I think he has clarified himself since then. And even if he hasn't for you, I never believed that he would have no problem with it.
Well perhaps you haven't read other posts of his. So I can see why you might assume this. From some of the things he said. Perhaps you might consider giving him some of the benefit of the doubt that you would like us to have for the perpertrators. Then we might all actually manage some understanding.
They shouldn't but this is not a perfect world. Sometimes they are. Robbery and carjacking can be terrifying for the victims. Should they respond, when they feel their life is threatened by hugging the perpertraitor and saying it's ok, pistol whip me, bash me, take my property, shoot me if you must, I bear you no ill will? If they are frightened for their lives, this could prove rather difficult. AND the onus is not on them to do so. The onus is on the perpertraitor to NOT attack in the first place.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Sorry. Just a silly question, but can't you amend the Bill of Rights?
"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process
Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Our comments are not worthy or relevant enough for you to take the time to read them, but we should read yours? No offense to you, personally, I just see this in a lot of threads and wonder why that is.
Many/most points in your post are repeats. We talked about what an "assault rifle" is. Why it probably doesn't mean anything. Why someone might want to use a semi-automatic, smaller caliber rifle when shooting prairie dogs. The effect on crime of an "assault weapons" ban across an entire country. The percent of crime committed using "assault rifles."
From what I gather death is the outcome onelongsong is going for, not just an unfortunate accident.
Where did I say people weren't allowed to defend themselves, or use force?
Well the world isn't black and white.
Yes, I see onelongsong has a very hard time with it.
"killing your first person is hard. especially if you look into their eyes. but after that it isn't that bad. when you exterminate vermin; you do society a favour."
It sounds like it's only a hard thing to go through once, after that it's nothing, like taking out the trash.
Neither do I. But when they go about it with an attitude like onelongsong's, it fills me with disgust. I never said anything against self-defence but when your mentality is set on killing whoever crosses a certain line, I think you have serious problems.
Yes, I know. Things can get out of control and when you use a gun death is a likely outcome especially if that's your whole plan, killing the vermin.
There's a difference. You shoot to defend yourself, your main objective should be your safety, not killing your attacker. And if in protection yourself your attacker is killed so be it, you were put in an (extreme) situation where you had to rely on extreme measures. I probably won't agree with it unless there was no other option at all but hey, that's life.
That's the point like I said. When force is necessary, your main objective should be neutralizing the threat, not killing the attacker.
I have my doubts. He seems to me a very irresponsible gun owner, but what do I know, apparently there are places in the world where it's considered responsible shooting near kids and at old ladies' feet when a simple yell would have sufficed.
But then again, I think he's making a lot of stuff up. So his macho behaviour could all be an act.
Oh I have, I haven't read many things that run counter to his statements here.
You're right.
No, you're right. They should fucking kill the bastards, maim them first if possible. Typical bullshit. If you have a real argument, try again.
True.
naděje umírá poslední
So don't read his. Anyway, most of this thread hasn't been about the original story.
naděje umírá poslední