Fox News vs. mental stability

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris

How do we determine what is safe for everyone?

---

i would have to say that what is safest for everyone is what puts everyone on equal footing: freedom. legislation restricts the law abiding, but the criminals violate law with impunity, they don't care, and therefore they have an advantage over the people who follow the law. regarding carry, criminals do where forbidden, law abiding citizens don't. sandy hook was a gun free zone, but that didn't stop the psycho from shooting kids. i'm not saying this to bring anything emotional into the mix, it's a fact: the gun free zone sign didn't give the mass murderer pause for even a second. if there had been law abiding citizens with guns on the scene, they may have been able to stop him, but they followed the law. again, the law restricts only those who would follow it in the first place, not criminals. which is why i hold the position that freedom is the best solution to keep people safe. now this will not save every life, and it will not mean that everyone will exercis this freedom, but everyone will have their fate in their own hands, their protection will be a matter for themselves and no one else, and that will encourage more people to be responsible and protect themselves, and their families, and the innocent people they don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witch_Doctor

:omgomg: Ooo, ooo, ooo!!! What if they were wearing Turbans? :omgomg:

---

i would personally have no problem with it, you want to protest peacefully? that's you're right. just like i feel that it's wrong for the army to deny people their right to arms in other countries. i feel that not matter who you are or where your from you should be able to coexist with the rest of us peacefully and so should be able to do what you want. now, if anyone doing this raises a weapon in a threatening manner (which would pretty much be at all) they should expect a quick and decisive bullet to the brainpan, but as long as they are peaceful, there should be no restrictions. it's like this, i should have a right to carry anywhere i have a legal right to be. i have a right to be in the legislative building, i have a right to self defense there, i have a right (whether recognized or not) to carry there. and if i want to protest peacefully, i have a right to do it in any way i see fit. or should have that right, anyway.

one more thing,

osiris, in an earlier post you asked me to define rights. i wrote up a post for my blog in which i define and establish the confines of rights and posted it here. i bring up our conversation in the post and present examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reaper239

one more thing,

osiris, in an earlier post you asked me to define rights. i wrote up a post for my blog in which i define and establish the confines of rights and posted it here. i bring up our conversation in the post and present examples.

---

Awesome! I'll check it out this afternoon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reaper239

i would have to say that what is safest for everyone is what puts everyone on equal footing: freedom. legislation restricts the law abiding, but the criminals violate law with impunity, they don't care, and therefore they have an advantage over the people who follow the law. regarding carry, criminals do where forbidden, law abiding citizens don't. sandy hook was a gun free zone, but that didn't stop the psycho from shooting kids. i'm not saying this to bring anything emotional into the mix, it's a fact: the gun free zone sign didn't give the mass murderer pause for even a second. if there had been law abiding citizens with guns on the scene, they may have been able to stop him, but they followed the law. again, the law restricts only those who would follow it in the first place, not criminals. which is why i hold the position that freedom is the best solution to keep people safe. now this will not save every life, and it will not mean that everyone will exercis this freedom, but everyone will have their fate in their own hands, their protection will be a matter for themselves and no one else, and that will encourage more people to be responsible and protect themselves, and their families, and the innocent people they don't know.

---

This is one of the biggest issues that I have with the gun debate, "people with guns were there, let me tell you . . . would of been different."

It certainly would have been different. It would have been bloodier, and more lives would have been lost. I know you buy into the idea that because you own a gun you're going to respond to the pressure with logic, and reason. Are you going to shoot him in the leg so that he can stand trial? Or are you going to enforce the death penalty? It's an argument to take the law into your own hands. You argue for the freedom to do so, but you argue against my freedom at the same time. You keep drawing a line of distinction between criminals and "legal" owners. You keep citing that criminals are going to carry no matter what, and you're ignoring the argument that even those who are "legal" present a danger. Dorner is a good example of that. You can keep arguing that "those are criminals" but the fact is they come from all walks of life. The inarguable fact remains: if you don't have a gun, you cannot shoot me with it. That is a far more appealing world than one where everyone may or may not have a gun.

Also, I just read your blog. Next time don't rely on wikipedia so heavily, and you won't argue against a semantics argument with a semantics argument. Or did you not notice you were doing that? Either way, well done.

In the end, it's a question of interpretation of that laws. We've established that fairly well, but I totally liked your dig, I totally liked it. I'm just disappointed that you didn't post it in your blog here as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris

Also, I just read your blog. Next time don't rely on wikipedia so heavily, and you won't argue against a semantics argument with a semantics argument. Or did you not notice you were doing that? Either way, well done.

In the end, it's a question of interpretation of that laws. We've established that fairly well, but I totally liked your dig, I totally liked it. I'm just disappointed that you didn't post it in your blog here as well!

---

i didn't rely on wikipedia at all.

also, when did i argue semantics? i said that natural rights cannot infringe on other natural rights, it's against the natural law. i said you have the right to self defense against violation of your right to life, and your right to property, and you cannot defend yourself without countervailing force, therefore, you have an inherent right to carry. but i trace every right to the two fundamental rights, life and property, and explain that your rights only have power over your life and property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris

This is one of the biggest issues that I have with the gun debate, "people with guns were there, let me tell you . . . would of been different."

It certainly would have been different. It would have been bloodier, and more lives would have been lost. I know you buy into the idea that because you own a gun you're going to respond to the pressure with logic, and reason. Are you going to shoot him in the leg so that he can stand trial? Or are you going to enforce the death penalty? It's an argument to take the law into your own hands. You argue for the freedom to do so, but you argue against my freedom at the same time. You keep drawing a line of distinction between criminals and "legal" owners. You keep citing that criminals are going to carry no matter what, and you're ignoring the argument that even those who are "legal" present a danger. Dorner is a good example of that. You can keep arguing that "those are criminals" but the fact is they come from all walks of life. The inarguable fact remains: if you don't have a gun, you cannot shoot me with it. That is a far more appealing world than one where everyone may or may not have a gun.

---

if i'm there with my gun, i'm going to seek to stop the threat as quickly as possible. a gun is lethal force, so lethal consequences should be expected. i'll say this, 15 dead kids and one dead asshole, would've been better than 20 dead kids. i don't buy that it would've been bloodier. there is simply no evidence, since every mass shooting where there is a law abiding citizen with a gun isn't a mass shooting, it's one, maybe two dead, and a dead perp, instead of 20 kids. it's a fact, you can look it up. it doesn't make it to the main stream media, because it doesn't fit the narrative, but it's true. there are more defensive handgun uses that offensive handgun uses, and more people were killed last year with a hammer than with an assault rifle. seriously, look up the stats. and at what point have i argued to restrict your freedom? never. and you're right, dorner is a perfect example of why everyone should carry, not just cops. look, you can say what you want, but the vast majority of people are law abiding citizens, and the fact that America, with all it's guns, isn't a giant shooting range is the proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reaper239

i didn't rely on wikipedia at all.

---

:hsugh:

I have--and had--a firm grasp of what human rights are. I think you missed the idea of this conversation which is more a discussion of the philosophy of the nature of the laws. Hence the questions as opposed to lecturing. Think of it as type of analytical jurisprudence, minus the lectern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reaper239

if i'm there with my gun, i'm going to seek to stop the threat as quickly as possible. a gun is lethal force, so lethal consequences should be expected. i'll say this, 15 dead kids and one dead asshole, would've been better than 20 dead kids. i don't buy that it would've been bloodier. there is simply no evidence, since every mass shooting where there is a law abiding citizen with a gun isn't a mass shooting, it's one, maybe two dead, and a dead perp, instead of 20 kids. it's a fact, you can look it up. it doesn't make it to the main stream media, because it doesn't fit the narrative, but it's true. there are more defensive handgun uses that offensive handgun uses, and more people were killed last year with a hammer than with an assault rifle. seriously, look up the stats. and at what point have i argued to restrict your freedom? never. and you're right, dorner is a perfect example of why everyone should carry, not just cops. look, you can say what you want, but the vast majority of people are law abiding citizens, and the fact that America, with all it's guns, isn't a giant shooting range is the proof.

---

The point at which you restrict my freedom to live in an area WITHOUT guns, so yes "always." When did I argue that Dorner is a good example of why everyone should carry? Dorner is a prime example of good guy gone bad, comprehension failed you there big time. The fact that America IS a great big shooting range is proven again and again with its propensity for mass shootings. Don't be blind to that fact, it isn't serving you well.