Why the double standard when it comes to firearms?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

I've noticed the wholehearted celebration that goes on here every time a gun owner is falsely arrested by the police and then the disdain with which the police are treated when they act improperly in any other instance. If we are going to preach against illegal police actions, shouldn't we be against all of them? Shouldn't we be consistent in our support of our Constitutional Amendments? Isn't falsely arresting someone on a gun charge just as bad as falsely arresting someone on a drug charge?

David

[Chulanowa]

1. Show me a gun owner falsely arrestedby the police

Followed by wholehearted celebration.

Further, show me how confiscating unregistered guns is equal to murdering a man being pinned by two other officers

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. The man arrested in Denver during the Democratic National Convention comes to mind.

Maybe celebration isn't the right word insulting and mocking are more the usual tone.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Here's one of the posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x183737

[Political Heretic]

6. Um... that guy broke the law. I'm not cheering about it, but it says right in the news report

That he was carrying concealed weapons without a permit.

If he broke the law, then he was penalized then there's really no story here (to cheer about or otherwise).

If I'm mistaken and he didn't break any law, then that sucks, I side with the man in question and there's still really no story to cheer about.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. All charges were dropped, he joined DU and he still hadn't gotten his guns back last I heard.

[iverglas]

20. he what?

What's this "he joined DU"?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. I took him at his word.

He seemed quite knowledgable about the incident, informed me about his trip (he was still able to go, he had to rent guns though), he still hadn't gotten his firearms back. He said he found DU when he did a search about the incident apparently all of our arguing put it high up on one of the search engines. He seemed quite a reasonable fellow, at least in my brief interactions with him. I suppose he might have been lying but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

David

[tburnsten]

31. He didn't break any laws, and wasn't carrying concealed

Having firearms in your luggage is not carrying concealed, and it is not illegal to have firearms in Denver, even if Nancy Pelosi is staying in the same hotel.




And the majority of posters here were pretty unclassy towards him.

[virginia mountainman]

9. Unregistered guns??

All my guns are unregistered...And I am not violating any law.

Their is no registration in the vast majority of the nation.

Are you advocating gun registration???

[Citizen Number 9]

26. I sorta lean towards gun registration myself.

One gun. One registration. One owner.

And you'd be responsible for your firearms, too.

Lose one or get it stolen and you'd have to take out a whopper of an insurance policy to make sure you could make good on any damage or destruction that was done with your misplaced firearm

Go ahead. Talk me out of it.

[slackmaster]

30. If owning a gun creates a signicant risk of a person causing actionable harm...

...Then why don't insurance companies charge higher premiums for (e.g.) homeowner's insurance for gun owners?

Why don't they offer a "gun-free home" discount?

[iverglas]

40. maybe

because no one is ever held liable/responsible for harm done when his/her unsecured firearm is stolen and used to cause said harm?

[gorfle]

111. And why not?

because no one is ever held liable/responsible for harm done when his/her unsecured firearm is stolen and used to cause said harm?

Why aren't there tons of negligence lawsuits against such people?

[iverglas]

112. maybe

because there is no way for the individuals harmed to identify the negligent owners?

Hmm.

[gorfle]

115. Of course.

maybe because there is no way for the individuals harmed to identify the negligent owners?

That's it. I shouldn't have missed that one.

[DavidMS]

180. You should know about intervening causes...

Its because there is an intervening criminal act (stealing the gun) that eliminates the gun owner's liability.

If someone steals your car because you forgot to lock the doors and then gets into a high-speed police chase, killing two pedestrians. The you would not be liable.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intervening+Cause

[SteveM]

97. Modern gun laws are based on dejure racist gun laws...

SEE: www.georgiacarry.org

Do a local search for Heller Brief. This will give you the lowdown on the racist nature of gun laws, especially regarding the subterfuge many measures have: passing taxes, requiring LEO permission, etc., in order to keep blacks from owning them.

If you consider the context of WHY the Second Amendment was passed, you would quickly see why "registration" completely negates that purpose.

BTW, I am already responsible for my firearms. I don't need the government -- or any individual -- to tell me "you'd be responsible for your firearms."

[iverglas]

105. just as modern sexual assault laws are based on de jure misogynist sexual assault laws

:yawn:

[gorfle]

110. No registration, not sure about insurance.

I won't ever support or comply with registration. The whole purpose of civilian firearm ownership is to stand as a counter to federal military power. If the government perceives such a counter as a threat then giving them a registration list is giving them a list of people to eliminate in any overt power grab.

I am not sure about the insurance. I wouldn't mind carrying it, since it would probably be an extremely cheap policy to buy, especially for people with no criminal background like myself. But unfortunately the only people buying it would be people required to do so, and that would be firearm owners, and now you are back to a list of firearm owners again. I have little doubt the government would lean on the agencies selling such policies to provide a list of customers, all in the name of "homeland security" or some other nonsense.

Anonymous firearm ownership is essential otherwise firearm ownership is no deterrent to an oppressive government.

[tburnsten]

32. Colorado does not have gun registration

Neither do most states. "unregistered gun" is generally used improperly or is not applicable at all.

[Posteritatis]

2. Yes, yes, and yes (nt)

[Hoyt]

5. Right wingers have built a "shrine" at Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.

That's an example of gun-nut criminals (actually "terrorists") who draw the support of right wingers.

Yet, some unarmed poor guy gets shot by the police and it's his fault or it was just a "understandable, unavoidable" mistake.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

141. Terrorists the government paid over 3 million dollars because the govt did nothing wrong huh.

Next time you have a thought just let it go.

David

[RamboLiberal]

7. I agree completely Fire_Medic_Dave

I was posting that when unfortunately this topic got sent down here.

Seems to me that some DU'ers forget the 4th amendment as long as what is confiscated is guns.

[The Straight Story]

8. Because of prejudice against guns I would suppose

A small small percent of people who own guns use them to harm others (even smaller if you take into account legal ownership versus illegal).

It all reminds me of how a minority of group X can be used by someone in group Y to portray all of X as a threat. Whether it be in the form of racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitic, and so on the same tactics are used time and again by people who fear something and want to control it or make it go away instead of becoming educated and living not based on fear but on knowledge.

There are bad cops so we have a fear of them all, there are bad gun owners so we fear them all, there are bad muslims so we fear them all (oh wait, the RW does that and we condemn their tactics when it comes to that and islam, it is ok to use said logic when talking about Christians though I think).

People celebrate when they get ammo for their view, it's the 'see I told you cops/guns/Christians/etc were bad, just lookie here at this news item!' while all the time not thinking about all the news that is not reported which puts things in a positive light (Christians feeding the hungry, cops helping out people, etc and so on - the news would probably be swamped with the good news items if they were reported each day....)

[uppityperson]

10. Yes. If you are going to rant against illegal police actions, rant against them all.

Tasing, illegal arrests, etc. Frustrating person back in GD, think just likes to argue.

[FLAprogressive]

11. The anti-RKBA folks and the anti-cop folks are usually one in the same. Which makes no sense when...

...you think about it. Who's gonna enforce their silly gun control laws in Bradyland?

[cabluedem]

178. What a load!! Most cops want to see guns taken off the streets and out of our lives. nt

[old mark]

179. Don't know where you got your info, but most cops

support "shall issue" concealed carry and private gun ownership.

mark

[gristy]

12. One step at a time - how about if we skip your stated but unproven assumption

that a double standard exists, and instead start with that as the question. As far as celebration vs disdain, can you provide evidence that any one poster exhibited both reactions?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. As I said.

Maybe celebrations not the right word, insult and mocking are more what the people in the stories are subjected too.

David

[jody]

13. The fact that your OP was banished to DU's Guns forum supports your concern. n/t

[jody]

16. Why was "LAX Cops catch another 'Moran' with 2 unloaded shotguns in SUV" not

banished to the Guns forum and this OP banished?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4810080

[uppityperson]

19. That is the one I meant, that topic and poster within

aieeee

[iverglas]

21. you're making a bunch of noise

But I'm not quite catching your drift.

If you object to what someone is saying in a thread, why not say so to the person in question?

Starting a thread here in the Guns forum about whatever/whoever it is, and then continuing the complaints in this thread, seems to be skating dangerously close to being in violation of the "calling out" rule.

[uppityperson]

24. I agree, I posted poorly and have asked for it to be deleted.

I was very frustrated at the double standard (if had been arrested illegally for another reason than guns there would be outrage, but guns, omg!) and should not have posted that. I did say so to the person in question, but alas.

So, indeed, I posted poorly and have asked for it to be deleted.

[jody]

22. Understand, it is curious that some DUers proclaim their support for all inalienable rights except

the 2nd. That's pure hypocrisy. :puke:

[iverglas]

23. ... the right not to be deprived of life without due process

Yeah. I find that one stupendously, er, "curious".

[bertman]

33. iverglas, what does that post have to do with this?

[iverglas]

34. well, if you follow the dots

It went like this:


Understand, it is curious that some DUers proclaim their support for all inalienable rights except
... the right not to be deprived of life without due process


You might want to familiarize yourself with some of the discussions here.

[bertman]

36. So, are you saying that owning a gun means that someone is going to be killed--

"deprived of life without due process"?

Please excuse my obtuseness. It's Monday.

[iverglas]

37. I am saying

You might want to read some of the discussions here.

There aren't really all that many.

You could try starting with this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196259&mesg_id=196259


Why you would think I was saying

So, are you saying that owning a gun means that someone is going to be killed--
"deprived of life without due process"?

I don't know.

My comment was about the many people in this forum who obviously don't give a shit about the provision of the US Constitution guaranting the right not to be deprived of life without due process ... and at the same time yammer on about how they love their Bill of Rights -- all of it.

[FLAprogressive]

38. Obviously the person committing a robbery was going to give everyone "due process".

[iverglas]

39. it's a hopeless task

Individuals do not give other individuals due process.

So your sarcasm failed. There was nothing to be sarcastic about.


Unfortunately, you need to start at the beginning and learn these concepts from the ground up, and teaching you is not something I'm about about to do.

[FLAprogressive]

41. What is your whole argument then? You speak about "due process" as if it has something to do....

...with people using guns and then you say "Individuals do not give other individuals due process."?

You're the hopeless one, I'm afraid.

[iverglas]

44. educate yourself

[FLAprogressive]

47. read the constitution...not the Brady version of it.

[iverglas]

48. your Constitution, for your edification

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Allowing one individual to deprive another individual of life with impunity VIOLATES the constitutional guarantee.

Why in the hell do you imagine that there are laws against homicide???

The state has an obligation NOT TO PERMIT individuals to kill other individuals.

Fucking duh.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

54. you, "sir"

need to find something else to occupy your time. Obviously, what goes on here is over your head. You might find enjoyment in basket-weaving.

[X_Digger]

71. Historical quotes..

Seems historical figures disagree with you (fucking duh!)

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense."
- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88

"The right to self defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
- President James Monroe, 1818

"The right to self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England

"By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another, by force of fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice."
- Thomas Jefferson, Batture Case, 1812

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson

[iverglas]

72. seems I don't give a shit

Fuckin duh.

Why you imagine that what some slave-owning, propertied-class white guys said over two centuries ago in a tiny corner of human history and geography would matter to me, I have no idea.

"Law of nature". You make me laugh.

[X_Digger]

78. If you're so dismissive..

Then why quote the documents they wrote in support of your position?

"Bah, I don't care what those old white dudes said.. except for this piece! Hah!"

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

82. such sad ignorance

of so many things ...

[iverglas]

81. lordy

If I were arguing with a Scientology adherent about what his/her foundational documents meant, and what was permitted and not permitted for Scientology adherents, I'd quote L. Ron Hubbard, for chrissakes.

I happen to agree with certain principles set out in that foundational document of yours, as they are in my own. And I find others incoherent or offensive, and I think some big ones are missing.

My personal opinion on the matters they address really doesn't affect what they say, except to the extent they may be open to interpretation and if I am adopting a particular interpretation.


Could you really not have worked this out for yourself??

[Raskolnik]

133. "slave-owning, propertied-class white guys"

Are you trying for self-parody, or do you not mind sounding like a freshman poli-sci student?

[beevul]

86. Errmmm...

Amendment V...


How do read amendment V, and whom exactly does that amendment - more specificly the restrictions in it - restrict?


The context of the amendment, and indeed the preamble to the bill of rights itself, imply that the restrictions contained within the amendment are aimed at government rather than individuals - thats my read.

That is not to disregard other laws we have against homicide, and I agree that the state has an obligation not to permit individuals to kill other individuals (without justification), but I'm not so sure amendment V applies as you appear to think it does.

/shrug.

[iverglas]

93. did you have a point?

Not so's I noticed.

Did I suggest that your Constitution was aimed at individuals? Absolutely 100% no.

There is an ongoing conversation. Do try to familiarize yourself with it before bounding in.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

128. Yeah. the point was to ask you a question. Care to answer it?

That would be this:

How do YOU read amendment V, and whom exactly does that amendment - more specificly the restrictions in it - restrict?

I read it as this:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime (by the government), unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb (by the government); nor shall be compelled (by the government) in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property(by the government), without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken (by the government) for public use, without just compensation.

You say:

"PERMITTING one individual to kill another with impunity IS a VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT of the individual who is killed not to be killed without due process."


Strictly speaking, I disagree. Yours is a hypothetical, since there just isn't any such killing with impunity going on within a mile of the context of this thread, and even in such a hypothetical, only the government is forbidden by the 5th amendment from the depriving of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

The individual whom was killed in your hypothetical only has the right not to be deprived of life liberty or property without due process by the government. To permit a thing, is entirely a different thing than doing that thing yourself. Amendment V does nothing more than to prevent the government from doing a thing itself.


What exactly is your take on it?

[jmg257]

49. If I may... (if not, or I am wrong - I apologize!). Iverglas refers to the fact

that shooting/killing someone, even in self-defense, deprives that person of life without due process.

Which is certainly the case. Our society has decided that such an occurance is justified, traditionally as long as there were no other alternatives. Yet it would be much better to not have to end someone's life (esp w/o due process) if one could avoid doing so.

That is not always the attitude from forum members here, as some have stated.

[FLAprogressive]

52. so if that person has the intent to deprive you of life with due process, that's okay?

[iverglas]

56. so you beat your dog twice daily?

so if that person has the intent to deprive you of life with due process, that's okay?

Who said that?

And if someone did, why aren't you asking him/her the question?

[FLAprogressive]

58. You can't answer the question.

[iverglas]

60. evidently, neither can you

So I'll just assume you beat your dog twice daily.

[FLAprogressive]

61. I don't have a dog.

[jmg257]

57. Nope - not Ok at all. Not with me anyway, and not with society. Which is why his death

would typically be justifiable if he was killed in self-defense, especially if the details allowed no other alternative.

Does all that impact the fact that he was killed w/o due process?

[jmg257]

64. Now, one might argue that the amendment being discussed

refers to restrictions on government only, since that is what the Bill of Rights is/was for. And it is usually understood that the natural rights of enjoying and defending life were not surrendered when making our social contract. But the whole reason for forming govts is to better secure those rights that remain - those which are not surrendered, and so our state & fed govts not only can't infringe on those rights, they are usually held responsible by the people for helping to secure them. Laws against homicide and assault are passed. In federal law the President has always been charged with ensuring that rights of the people, especially those enumerated in the Constitution are not violated (which would of course include due process)...part of the whole "militia in federal service" thing, most recently codified in the John Warner Act.

So, the right to not be deprived of life without due process does exist for all people (considered unalienable). It is supposed to be secure from all infringement, even well-meaning lynch mobs. It is however justifiable in our society, in certain cases, to violate that right. As was discussed previously - when someone wants to maliciously violate YOUR right to life.


edit: spelling, expansion

[tburnsten]

129. The laws are against murder and manslaughter, not homicide

[jmg257]

132. Which laws? Where? In the state I live in, there are certainly laws against homicide...

S 125.00 Homicide defined.
Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn
child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four
weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first
degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent
homicide...

S 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when

S 125.11 Aggravated criminally negligent homicide.

S 125.12 Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree when
he:
(1) commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide

S 125.14 Aggravated vehicular homicide.

And there are indeed laws against murder, which from above seems to fall under the definition of homicide....
125.25 Murder in the second degree.
125.26 Aggravated murder.
125.27 Murder in the first degree.

[tburnsten]

140. I forgot about negligent homicide

But every other charge listed is either murder or manslaughter of one kind or another.

[iverglas]

161. you forgot about murder and manslaughter too

Some of this stuff, you wouldn't believe unless you saw it, I swan.

http://www.copcampus.com/NewYorkStatePenaLlaw/penal_law99.html

ARTICLE 125
HOMICIDE, ABORTION AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 125.00 Homicide defined.
125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of
terms.
125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
125.12 Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree.
125.13 Vehicular manslaughter in the first degree.
125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
125.25 Murder in the second degree.
125.27 Murder in the first degree.
125.40 Abortion in the second degree.
125.45 Abortion in the first degree.
125.50 Self-abortion in the second degree.
125.55 Self-abortion in the first degree.
125.60 Issuing abortional articles.

125.00 Homicide defined.
Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree.

Ignore the abortion bullshit, and what you get is:

Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree (or) criminally negligent homicide.

There are various kinds of *culpable* homicide. (An accidental homicide -- the accidental killing of a person -- is still a homicide, by bleeding definition, it just isn't *culpable* homicide.)

Murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide.

They are all homicide BY DEFINITION.

How can one even attempt to hold a conversation with someone when s/he doesn't know what the words used in the conversation MEAN???

[Scout]

165. oh iverglas, you are just nitpicking ... words don't really MEAN anything specific!

i'm sorry i just can't help it.

you are so patient with them... :toast:

[iverglas]

55. in a nutshell

[tburnsten]

50. The right to not be deprived of life without due process goes both ways

And if someone is trying to deprive you of your life for their own gain, why should you just go along with it? Do you consider saving your own life at the expense of your attacker's depriving them of life without due process? Last I checked, the constitution is a list of protections for individual citizens rights against encroachment by the government. It is a list of things the government has no right to do, not a list of things individuals must abide by in their personal interactions. Killing someone who is attempting to cause grievous bodily harm to yourself or others is hardly depriving them of life without "due process", since individuals are not courts, they are not government bodies, they don't have the luxury of giving their attacker a trial.

[FLAprogressive]

51. It's almost not worth it to bother with iverglas - s/he is just so smug and sees everything in B/W

like your average Brady supporter.

[iverglas]

59. "why should you just go along with it?"

I give up. Why don't you try asking someone who said you should?

You might want to try basket-weaving too. I can't imagine you actually enjoy being this confused.


Killing someone who is attempting to cause grievous bodily harm to yourself or others is hardly depriving them of life without "due process", since individuals are not courts, they are not government bodies, they don't have the luxury of giving their attacker a trial.

And no one said it was.

PERMITTING one individual to kill another with impunity IS a VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT of the individual who is killed not to be killed without due process.


Whistling in the wind, I know.

[FLAprogressive]

63. obviously you're going to continue to see everything in black-and-white

when most here seem to see things in shades of grey.

[tburnsten]

66. Nobody is allowed to kill others "with impunity"

Every shooting is investigated, no one who shoots another person is given a pass on it, even if it is obviously not a wrongful shooting.


Please explain what you mean by killing with impunity.

[iverglas]

67. well, we could play this circle game indefinitely

But I think I won't bother.

[tburnsten]

69. We can play it indefinitely

Since you won't just tell me what you mean. When you decide to try honesty out let me know, it will be an interesting day.

[iverglas]

76. what the fuck is your problem?

I have stated -- over and over and over, over the years -- that I agree that homicide can be JUSTIFIED, i.e. that it is reasonable and in fact essential for the law to provide that an individual may not be punished for committing a homicide (or any assault) where the action meets the appropriate standards for the self-defence excuse/justification.

I HAVE NEVER SAID anything remotely resembling "if someone is trying to deprive you of your life for their own gain you should just go along with it".

So I have no fucking clue why you would say to me:

if someone is trying to deprive you of your life for their own gain, why should you just go along with it?

I HAVE NEVER SAID that saving your own life at the expense of your attacker's is depriving them of life without due process.

So I have no fucking clue why you would say to me:

Do you consider saving your own life at the expense of your attacker's depriving them of life without due process?

DUE PROCESS applies only to STATE ACTIONS, not to individual actions.

A state action -- a law -- that PERMITTED one individual to deprive another of life WITH IMPUNITY would be a violation of the RIGHT not to be deprived of life without due process.

That is, an ABSENCE of laws prohibiting homicide would render that constitutional guarantee meaningless. To all but the most loony libertarian among us.

"Self-defence" is a legal EXCUSE for homicide. It allows an individual to JUSTIFY the homicide s/he committed contrary to the laws prohibiting homicide.

If individuals were not required to JUSTIFY committing homicides, they would be able to commit homicide WITH IMPUNITY.

If "cleaning the gene pool" or "removing scum from society", or the various other expressions that are used in this forum over and over and over to describe particular homicides, were legal JUSTIFICATION for homicide, then individuals would be ALLOWED TO COMMIT HOMICIDE WITH IMPUNITY, at their own whim. There would essentially be NO requirement for justification, because anyone who committed a homicide could say "s/he was scum", and that would be an end of it.

There are quite a number of people here who are fond of parroting the line about how they support their Bill of Rights -- all of it -- insinuating that some people take their Bill of Rights à la carte. (There being absolutely nothing wrong with opposing any part of it, in fact; I'm sure most people here would oppose that prohibition part were it still extant.) And then proceed to applaud and advocate the KILLING of people WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION other than their own sick opinion about who should live and who should not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196259

Human beings are not "waste", and killing human beings is not "getting rid of garbage". Etc.

(That would also be the thread in which you said "What circumstances would it take for a man to be beating a woman in the head with a bottle to be "righteous"? to someone who had not given the slightest hint of grounds for your implication that he thought there were ANY such circumstances. Persistent reading comprehension problems, or persistent misrepresentation?)

The right not to be deprived of life without due process applies to EVERYONE. EVERYONE includes the people to whom some people wish or think it doesn't apply.

If the state permits individuals to kill other individuals without requiring JUSTIFICATION for the killing it violates the right not to be deprived of life without due process.

At least, I assure you, in the big wide world in the 21st century it is.

And if the state were to consider "the person was scum" to be JUSTIFICATION for killing the person, we may as well be swinging from trees.

The flip side of the coin is that DENYING access to the self-defence excuse to justify homicide (or assault) would be a violation of the same right.

If someone DID have to "just go along with" being assaulted, on pain of punishment for using force to avert serious injury or death, THAT would be a violation of the right to life. People would be liable to punishment for trying to prevent their own death. The law under which they were liable to punishment would be a violation of their right not to be deprived of life without due process.

THAT is why we have the self-defence excuse, and why we consider some homicides to be justified: they are committed in order to avert serious injury/death, where there is a reasonable belief that it will otherwise result and that there is no reasonable alternative to using force. Denying individuals that option, by imposing punishment if it is exercised and thus requiring that individuals "just go along with it" if someone were trying to kill them, would be a violation of the right not to be deprived of life without due process.

One coin. Two sides.

And anyone who applauds or advocates killing FOR ANY OTHER REASON is the one who is not supporting ALL of their Bill of Rights, and whose words are contrary to its most fundamental principles. THAT being the point I was making in post 23.

Now I am sure beyond a doubt that you will find something in what I have said to misrepresent, since that is evidently all you have in your quiver. So have at it.

[tburnsten]

91. So you have only been posting about hypothetical situations?

Really doesn't jive with the earlier posts you have in this thread.



"I HAVE NEVER SAID that saving your own life at the expense of your attacker's is depriving them of life without due process.

So I have no fucking clue why you would say to me:

Do you consider saving your own life at the expense of your attacker's depriving them of life without due process?

DUE PROCESS applies only to STATE ACTIONS, not to individual actions.

A state action -- a law -- that PERMITTED one individual to deprive another of life WITH IMPUNITY would be a violation of the RIGHT not to be deprived of life without due process."



By the way, what the fuck is your problem?

[gorfle]

114. Nah,

PERMITTING one individual to kill another with impunity IS a VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT of the individual who is killed not to be killed without due process.

Nah, it's just one of those reasonable restrictions, like yelling fire in a theater, or requiring a permit for concealed carry.

[iverglas]

118. do you need to look up "impunity" now?

I think so.

[gorfle]

139. No.

If you have something to say regarding "impunity", then I'll leave the work for you, thanks.

I wouldn't want to infer something and then get in trouble for saying things you didn't say, after all.

[gorfle]

113. On the Bill of Rights

My comment was about the many people in this forum who obviously don't give a shit about the provision of the US Constitution guaranting the right not to be deprived of life without due process ... and at the same time yammer on about how they love their Bill of Rights -- all of it.

The Bill of Rights is about restricting the power of government so as to protect the rights of the people. In the case of due process, the intent is generally to protect the innocent by providing fair and impartial trials by juries of peers so that the evidence can be brought forth and guilt or non-guilt can be determined.

These are great protections, and I support them fully.

I do not, however, get terribly upset when someone is caught in the act of doing something heinous and is shot and killed for it. You don't need due process when there is no question of guilt. For example, when a man walks into a store and catches someone beating the crap out of the woman behind the counter with a bottle, and then shoots him dead, with the whole event caught on video, I'm not really upset that the thug didn't have a trial to determine if he was guilty or not.

If someone in an auditorium at Virginia Tech had pulled out a handgun and blown Cho away before he killed thirty-two people, likewise I would not bemoan his loss of due process, because the man was performing his act of mass murder in front of a classroom full of witnesses.

When a 70-year-old man blows away two armed robbers in the apartment he is renovating I don't bemoan the fact that the two armed robbers were deprived of due process.

So just as all rights have reasonable restrictions on them, I'd say loosing your right to due process because you're caught in a criminal act and are killed in the process is just another one of those reasonable restrictions.

[iverglas]

117. one does tire

A person who is killed in an act of self-defence may not have got due process, but s/he has not lost the RIGHT to due process.

Inalienable. Say it after me. I-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e. What the right to life is.

Allowing the use of force in self-defence is a violation of the right to due process. A JUSTIFIED violation.

Listen. I know that no matter how much one tries to roll the boulder from the mouth of the cave and allow the light of modernity to shine inside, and maybe even coax the inhabitants to come outside, it isn't going to work in this place.

You will maintain your strange narrow constructions of concepts relating to rights, and you and your fellow citizens will go on suffering the consequences. Your GLBT siblings will be unable to marry, because it isn't plain as day to the rest of you what equal protection of the law and liberty mean (or at least nobody will admit it). Your sisters will go on suffering interference in and denial of their reproductive rights, because it isn't plain as day to the rest of you what the right to life and liberty and not to be deprived thereof without due process means (or at least nobody will admit it). Etc. etc. etc.

And you will all go on applauding vigilante killers for reasons that I know quite well. So rest assured, I'm never actually trying to persuade you of anything. Although I would be pleased as punch if someday you all did join us here in the 21st century.

[tburnsten]

119. I'm having a pretty hard time figuring out what you are attempting to communicate to us

You have been waffling like a Belgian on this, it is almost like watching someone play ping-pong alone with a regular table. Could you just say what you feel or think please?

[iverglas]

120. I feel

hungry.

I think clearly.

What the hell are you on about??

[gorfle]

136. What he is on about.

I suspect he is feeling the same confusion I am after reading your posts.

You have been beating me up for my views on shooting people caught in the act of committing violent crimes, by insinuating that I support the second amendment but somehow don't support the 5th because the criminal has been deprived of due process.

Now it sounds like you are saying that they weren't deprived of the right to due process, they were just deprived of due process.

To me, these are virtually synonymous. If you take away my ability to do a thing, whether I still theoretically have the right to do that thing or not is pretty much mute. So by taking away my ability to do a thing you have, effectively, taken away my right to do it.

Either way, it's a bunch of semantics. The point I have been trying to make is that I don't get bent out of shape if a criminal, caught in an act of criminal violence, is deprived of his right, or deprived of his ability to act on his right, to due process. To me, it's just one of those reasonable restrictions on rights.

Just like you can't yell "fire!" in a theater and expect 1st amendment protection, you can't get caught in an act of criminal violence by someone with the means to stop you by force and expect 5th amendment protection. If you survive your encounter, hey, by all means, have 5th amendment protection. But if you die, oh well, no tears shed here.

[tburnsten]

150. Thank you for distilling it

Now to see what kind of semantic waste of time she can come up with next. Think of all the electrons she has inconveinenced.

[gorfle]

135. Inalienable.

A person who is killed in an act of self-defence may not have got due process, but s/he has not lost the RIGHT to due process.

Then why do you keep clubbing us pro-self-defense folks over the head for the loss of the victim's due process and not respecting "all" of the Bill of Rights?

Inalienable. Say it after me. I-n-a-l-i-e-n-a-b-l-e. What the right to life is.

Just like the right to keep and bear arms is, by the way.

Allowing the use of force in self-defence is a violation of the right to due process. A JUSTIFIED violation.

Well if is justified, why do you keep clubbing us over the head for it as if we somehow support the 2nd amendment but not the rest of the Bill of Rights?

You will maintain your strange narrow constructions of concepts relating to rights, and you and your fellow citizens will go on suffering the consequences. Your GLBT siblings will be unable to marry, because it isn't plain as day to the rest of you what equal protection of the law and liberty mean (or at least nobody will admit it). Your sisters will go on suffering interference in and denial of their reproductive rights, because it isn't plain as day to the rest of you what the right to life and liberty and not to be deprived thereof without due process means (or at least nobody will admit it). Etc. etc. etc.

I don't see what shooting violent criminals caught in the act has to do with gay marriage, which I support, or reproductive rights, which I also support.

Although I would be pleased as punch if someday you all did join us here in the 21st century.

As much as you may not like it, the concepts I espouse are very much a part of 21st century culture and society.

[beevul]

125. You're wasting your time, Gorfle.

Heres amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


I think you and I are on the same page, as to its meaning, and whom it applies to.

Other posters apparently need the cliff notes version:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime (by the federal government), unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb (by the government); nor shall be compelled (by the government) in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (by the government); nor shall private property be taken (by the government) for public use, without just compensation.

That is how I read the amendment, and as I have stated previously, the preamble to the bill of rights supports that, as does the context of the amendment itself.

Of course, others see it differently and say things like "I know that no matter how much one tries to roll the boulder from the mouth of the cave and allow the light of modernity to shine inside, and maybe even coax the inhabitants to come outside, it isn't going to work in this place".

Get it strait man. Reading words...the words of amendment V...and actually reading its meaning as it was intended to mean...is "living in a cave behind a boulder". Thats what this amounts to. A classic and overplayed tactic of sending a message without actually having to say the message, that way one can say "I never said that".

Transparent.


The "due process" line of argument where this discussion is concerned, is utter poppycock.

Only the government can violate an individuals 5th amendment rights (again, if one reads the words as they were intended - asking for those that disagree with thier meaning actually change the words, rather than changing thier meaning is "living in a cave behind a boulder". Gee where have we seen that before? "The second amendment is a collective right".

Hardly anything new for the 21st century.

[gorfle]

137. Bwhahahahah!

A classic and overplayed tactic of sending a message without actually having to say the message, that way one can say "I never said that".

Transparent.

Brilliantly said. That one's going in my bookmarks, too, just like your "I said X but I meant Y" post.

[Raskolnik]

131. You should stick to Canadian law, because your knowledge of the U.S. Constitution is a bit lacking

Allowing the use of force in self-defence is a violation of the right to due process.

No, it really isn't, particularly when the person acting in self-defense is a non-state actor.

Iverglas, you can be snotty, or you can be wrong, but it's generally not a good idea to be both at the same time.

[gorfle]

138. Well and simply put.

Allowing the use of force in self-defence is a violation of the right to due process.


No, it really isn't, particularly when the person acting in self-defense is a non-state actor.

Well said.

[iverglas]

154. at least I'm not dishonest

the way someone who quotes a statement without quoting the statement after it, that makes it plain that the statement he quoted DOES NOT MEAN what he is pretending it means, is.


typo

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Very interesting it seems a suitable topic for General Discussion.

After all it is not per say about firearms but the double standard that exists here about them. Anyhow it is the discretion of the moderators and I will not argue.

David

[jody]

18. And I don't argue with mods either but the unequal treatment is interesting. n/t

[Joe Steel]

25. Malum in se

Why the double standard when it comes to firearms?

I've noticed the wholehearted celebration that goes on here every time a gun owner is falsely arrested by the police and then the disdain with which the police are treated when they act improperly in any other instance. If we are going to preach against illegal police actions, shouldn't we be against all of them? Shouldn't we be consistent in our support of our Constitutional Amendments? Isn't falsely arresting someone on a gun charge just as bad as falsely arresting someone on a drug charge?

"Malum in se" is a Latin phrase meaning wrong in itself.

Guns are inherently evil. Getting them off the street is not "malum in se."

[rrneck]

27. Guns are not inherently evil.

That was in english. Can you locate or quantify the "evil" in a gun? Show me a picture of it.

[ManiacJoe]

28. Objects do not have the attribute of good/evil.

That attribute belongs wholly to the user of the object.

[slackmaster]

29. It's very easy to prove that guns are not inherently evil

Because they are used for morally good and morally neutral purposes as well as evil ones. The determing factor is human behavior, not the weapon itself.

Getting them off the street is not "malum in se."

No, but arresting a man who has not committed any crime and confiscating his valuable property qualifies as malum in se.

[Joe Steel]

43. Guns are designed for killing.

While you may be correct about usage which isn't evil, it's contrary to the fundamental and usual intent of gun users. They want to kill and they select the artifiact designed to make killing fast, easy and safe. In my opinion, that makes them evil.

[jmg257]

45. IF the only intent of some "gun users" was to kill, you may be right. I really do not know too many

gun users who have that intent...I actually do not know ANY who want to kill people - whether it is safe and easy or not. I too would have REAL issue with those people. I do know some who want to kill animals - which would make using guns that do so quickly, safely and easily definitely NOT evil - but a good idea.

[FLAprogressive]

62. A lot of gun users want to keep people from killing them.

[jmg257]

68. Surely, as I am 1. And then owning guns that allow one to do so efficiently and safely

is also NOT evil at all - but smart.

[slackmaster]

65. Killing is not inherently evil

Sometimes bad things need to be killed.

Killing animals for food is IMO morally neutral.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. I have no intent or desire to kill anyone or anything with my firearms.

So does that make my firearms less evil?

David

[X_Digger]

79. The 'intent' of a gun..

.. is to propel a projectile in the direction it's pointed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. ooh scary evil guns.

Where is Iverglas so we can show her an example of a poster prescribing strange attributes to inanimate objects?

David

[iverglas]

35. I do think

someone is enjoying himself.

Guns are inherently evil.

Not wearing a straw overcoat, are you?

[Joe Steel]

42. What does that mean?

Not wearing a straw overcoat, are you?

Straw overcoat?

[iverglas]

46. I'm sorry, but

Guns are inherently evil.

is really a very odd thing to say.

It's actually the sort of thing that firearms control advocates are constantly alleged to think, ridiculous though it is, and your post provides a convenient hook for people who choose to portray firearms control advocates as thinking such bizarre things to hang their future allegations on.

[Joe Steel]

70. We have to have some balance.

Guns are inherently evil.

is really a very odd thing to say.

It's actually the sort of thing that firearms control advocates are constantly alleged to think, ridiculous though it is, and your post provides a convenient hook for people who choose to portray firearms control advocates as thinking such bizarre things to hang their future allegations on.

It's no more bizarre than saying "guns save lives." We have to have some balance.

[raimius]

73. Two arguments you bring up.

1. Guns are evil.
--No, they are metal, plastic, and wood. They cannot BE anything else. They are machines--no consciousness, no morality, just existence.
Guns most certainly CAN be used for evil, but that is due entirely to the humans use of the machine known as a gun.

2. "Guns save lives" is bizarre. Perhaps bizarre, but very true. Even at the low end of estimations, firearms are used tens of thousands of times per year in the US for defense. (High end estimates are around 2+ million.)

[iverglas]

77. ah

Add two foolish statements and you get truth?

(One) plus (minus one) equals (zero).

But I don't really think "guns are inherently evil" plus "guns save lives" equals much of anything other than a dog's breakfast.

[Joe Steel]

90. What does it all mean?

(D)og's breakfast?

(S)traw overcoat?

[iverglas]

106. ah, words

It is ridiculous to call an object "evil". And calling firearms "evil" has nothing to do with stating that drugs are toxic. Toxicity (poisonessness) and "evil" are not the same thing.

One of the many falsehoods used to advance the gun militant agenda is that firearms control advocates hate/fear firearms. Obviously, only people with psychoses ascribe morality and intent to inanimate objects. "I hate guns" may be a colourful turn of phrase, but no one really regards a metal object as inherently good or bad.

Your assertion that guns are "evil" will simply be used to advance this straw-person argument used in service of the gun militant agenda: that firearms control advocates are raving loons / don't have a clue. I see no point in saying such things. You simply set yourself up to be the one whom anyone who chooses to engage in such argument can point at.

Hence my reference to wearing a straw overcoat: being the straw person they can then all skewer. I do wonder at the purpose of doing that.


Dog's breakfast? I can never believe that so many people really haven't heard so many idioms.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/114550.html

Dog's breakfast

Meaning

A mess or muddle.

Origin

This is a 20th century phrase. Eric Partridge, in the 1937 edition of his 'Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English' lists it as "a mess: low Glasgow".

This is not to be confused with the the similar phrase - dog's dinner which, although coined around the same time, has a completely different meaning.

See also: the dog's bollocks.

The dog's breakfast is basically what is left on the sidewalk the morning after the night before, generally having been previously eaten for dinner by someone else.

[Joe Steel]

109. It's not.

It is ridiculous to call an object "evil".

It's not.

adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

And calling firearms "evil" has nothing to do with stating that drugs are toxic. Toxicity (poisonessness) and "evil" are not the same thing.

I was speaking allegorically.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

142. You see what's funny is...

that many of us how posted about how gun grabbers seem to prescribe human characteristics to inanimate objects (guns). Iverglas has challenged many of us to give some proof of people doing that. Here you have done exactly what we have accused some of you'll of doing. So thanks for proving our point.

David

[Joe Steel]

143. I'm glad I could prove your point wrong.

...many of us how posted about how gun grabbers seem to prescribe human characteristics to inanimate objects (guns).

As I've shown, ascribing evil to inanimate objects is reasonable.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. When you are the only person that agrees with you, you might want to rethink things.

[Joe Steel]

145. What makes you think no one agrees with me?

When you are the only person that agrees with you, you might want to rethink things.

What makes you think no one agrees with me?

And why would I want to rethink things when I'm right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

146. Guns aren't any more evil than knives or cars.

Inanimate objects can be used in evil ways but that doesn't make the objects themselves evil. If a gun was used to stop a homicidal knife wielding man who was killing children in a day care would that be evil. Is target shooting an evil activity? I read about 2 kids with some rare disorder that could eat very few foods one of which was squirrel meat they relied on local hunters to provide the food that kept them alive, are the guns those hunters use evil? I don't believe things are as black and white as you see them.

David

[Joe Steel]

149. Did you see my comment...

Guns aren't any more evil than knives or cars.

Inanimate objects can be used in evil ways but that doesn't make the objects themselves evil. If a gun was used to stop a homicidal knife wielding man who was killing children in a day care would that be evil. Is target shooting an evil activity? I read about 2 kids with some rare disorder that could eat very few foods one of which was squirrel meat they relied on local hunters to provide the food that kept them alive, are the guns those hunters use evil? I don't believe things are as black and white as you see them.

Did you see my comment on prescriptions drugs?

I asked a doctor why a certain drug was sold by prescription only. I said I didn't see how it could be abused. He told me all drugs were poisons and that we tolerated the danger because of the benefits we could derive from them.

Guns are pretty much the same thing. They're all evil but occasionally we get some good from them. That doesn't change their fundamental nature. They're still poisonous to humans.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. So you think all medications are poison?

[Joe Steel]

158. That's what the doctor said.

So you think all medications are poison?

That's what the doctor said.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

159. Do you agree?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

160. Again do you agree with your doctor friend?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. Once more, do you agree with your doctor friends assertion that all medications are poison?

[Joe Steel]

167. Yes. What's the problem?

Once more, do you agree with your doctor friends assertion that all medications are poison?

Yes. What's the problem?

2: a substance that inhibits the activity of another substance or the course of a reaction or process <a catalyst poison>

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. I just wanted to make sure.

[tburnsten]

152. Well for one thing

You are very anti-gun and even iverglas isn't backing you up. That's fucked.

[tburnsten]

151. You are a lark

Please don't ever stop posting here.

[Joe Steel]

153. I couldn't...

Please don't ever stop posting here.

I couldn't abandon anyone who so desperately needs my help.

[tburnsten]

156. Thank you for your dedication and commitment

I'll try to follow your lead

[Joe Steel]

92. Inherently evil

A few days ago I was talking with a doctor and wondered why a particular drug was sold only by prescription. I said I couldn't imagine how anyone could abuse the drug as intoxicant. The doctor said "all drugs are poisons," implying that they are sold by prescription not because they could be abused but because they are inherently harmful. We have to control them to get the good they do without being overwhelmed by the bad.

Guns are like drugs. They are inherently evil but have some beneficial uses.

[ManiacJoe]

99. Guns, like all other objects, do not have the ability

to be good/evil. That attribute belongs wholy to the user of the object.

[Joe Steel]

100. Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man...

Evil exists in things as well as men.

Evil

Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist. Nevertheless, there is no department of human life in which its presence is not felt; and the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be has always called for explanation in the account which mankind has sought to give of itself and its surroundings. For this purpose it is necessary (1) to define the precise nature of the principle that imparts the character of evil to so great a variety of circumstances, and (2) to ascertain, as far as may be possible, to source from which it arises.

With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds -- physical, moral, and metaphysical. Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization. Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

[jmg257]

101. Unfortunate to have to, but let's read that again..

"Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists.
...
Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization."


Still doesn't sound like "guns" are evil to me, not without the intervention of a human being. Death, even naturally, is apparently evil, as are accidents (with or without a gun). Opression & crime (with or without a gun) apparently also meet the description. These evils occur - with or wihout guns, which seems to say that 'a gun' is not the thing that is evil. Further, I see nothing there that relates to "guns" on their lonesome, which in THEIR natural state, well...do nothing.

I just haven't heard of too many who caused harm without a bit of help or some stupidity.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. You won't get an answer since you just destroyed his argument.

[ManiacJoe]

104. That would be a rather abnormal definition.

What they describe as "physical evil" would seem to more closely match the normal definition of "dangerous". Lots of objects are dangerous. That is usually one of the properties that makes the particular object useful.

eta: The normal defintion of "evil" would resemble the "moral evil" reference from that site.

[iverglas]

108. yeah, kinda like the *normal* definition of "righteous"

The normal defintion of "evil" would resemble the "moral evil" reference from that site.

Kinda exactly like, actually ...

[iverglas]

107. such fondness for archaic language hereabouts

You might be correct to use "evil" in connections with firearms in the sense boldfaced below:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evil

e·vil (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.


But the expression "X is evil" really is not used to convey that meaning.

[Joe Steel]

130. So you see the evil in the gun.

You might be correct to use "evil" in connections with firearms in the sense...

So you see the evil in the gun. Are we now discussing the nature of the evil?

[iverglas]

155. No, I don't, so please don't say I do

I said that this meaning might have some relevance:

Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.

However, that is too plainly not the meaning you intended by saying "guns are evil". Not least because that would not even make sense.

The evil guns of a ... ?

A synonym for that meaning might be "nefarious". Are guns nefarious -- do they cause ruin, injury or pain, are they harmful?

Not intrinsically. No. So the statement is not an accurate characterization of guns.

[Joe Steel]

163. Are you denying the evidence of your own eyes?

No, I don't, so please don't say I do

I said that this meaning might have some relevance:

I gave you numerous examples of evil used in the way I wish to use it. Are you denying the evidence of your own eyes?

[iverglas]

166. one last, er, shot

This is the only meaning of "evil" that could allow you to avoid the silly consequences of the statement "guns are evil":

"Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet."

So you might well refer to "the evil effects of misused firearms".

Would you say "a diet is evil"? Of course not. A diet of fresh veggies and other such goodies is not evil at all.

So why would you say "guns are evil"?

With regard to your theology:

With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds -- physical, moral, and metaphysical. Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists. Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc. Poverty, oppression, and some forms of disease are instances of evil arising from imperfect social organization. Mental suffering, such as anxiety, disappointment, and remorse, and the limitation of intelligence which prevents humans beings from attaining to the full comprehension of their environment, are congenital forms of evil each vary in character and degree according to natural disposition and social circumstances.

-- how is this relevant?

Which one does not belong? --
(a) sickness
(b) poverty
(c) anxiety
(d) guns

Which one is not a state or condition of the human being or community? Are guns a physical evil, a moral evil or a metaphysical evil? How can this question even make sense?

"Physical evils directly due to nature are sickness, accident, death, etc." -- just doesn't help you. "Guns" are not ... Latin has deserted me; it's Monday morning ... they are not of the same kind as sickness, accident and death. The "etc." cannot include "guns".

You can say "the evil effects of <adjective> guns", à la "the evil effects of a poor diet", and make sense.

You can say "guns are inherently dangerous", à la "prescription drugs are inherently poisonous", and make sense.

You cannot say "guns are evil" and make sense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. Nicely stated Iverlgas, I believe even my 3 year old nephew could understand that.

[iverglas]

170. so from now on

you will listen carefully when I speak, and nod.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

171. Unlikely.

[Joe Steel]

172. Your logic is flawed.

You cannot say "guns are evil" and make sense.

Your logic is flawed and you've ignored all the evidence I've presented. I guess your eyes are tightly closed and you'll never admit your error or even see it.

We can say guns are evil because we naturally attribute to an object all that is associated with it.

[DrCory]

173. What If...

All that is associated with the object is not "evil"?

"We can say guns are evil because we naturally attribute to an object all that is associated with it."

Sorry, still not convinced it's logical to attribute a human philosophical construct to an inanimate object.

Anyway, consider how many unjustified death warrants of one form or another have been printed/signed in ink. Does this fact render ink "evil"?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

174. You've admitted that guns have some beneficial uses.

So it appears you have contradicted yourself.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

147. Do you think medicine is evil?

[Joe Steel]

164. Good point.

Do you think medicine is evil?

Good point.

No. While it is a poison, on balance, medicine does far more good than bad.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

175. But you think all medications are poison.

[Joe Steel]

176. So?

But you think all medications are poison.

So?

What's your point?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

177. Poison-A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.

American Heritage Dictionary. So poisons aren't evil, even though by definition they do nothing but harm. Guns are though just because you say so.

David

[X_Digger]

102. Seriously?

Have you signed the petition? Ban DiHydrogen Monoxide!

Is a rock inherently evil? It could trip me, or fall off a cliff and kill me. How about air? It can knock me off the road while driving, or rip my roof off during a storm. Evil air? *snort*

[tucsonlib]

83. Re: Shouldn't we be consistent in our support of our Constitutional Amendments?

Ah, now there's an interesting question to raise in this forum. In the past eight years the rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments have been essentially erased. And not once did I hear the slightest cry of outrage or call to action in this forum. Of course, it was mostly "those people" who were being held without charge, arrested for their beliefs, denied their right to trial, etc. etc. WE would never be denied that stuff!
I can't shake the awful feeling that to many in this forum, if the day comes when the Bill of Rights has been whittled down to one amendment, they'll still brag about how "free" they are. Just as long as that one amendment is the 2nd.

And they'll be singing at the top of their lungs this refrain - Gibberish so monumentally meaningless; a pile of such illiterate bullshit that it earned for its composer a Presidential appointment to the National Arts Council:


"I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free."


:banghead: :banghead:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. If you didn't hear outrage about those things on this forum it is because you ignored it.

Of course I didn't hear much about those things on the health forum. Maybe they are all closet republicans too. By the way I'd love to finish that other discussion there are several posts waiting on you.

David

[tucsonlib]

87. No..

because topics in the health forum don't relate to the Bill of Rights. I've always been more than pleased to admit it when I'm mistaken, so please, point me to a single OP here that has addressed the erosion of any freedom other than RKBA. (And I thought 2A was the bulwark that would prevent the erosion of our liberties. What happened?)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. This is the Guns forum, I would expect topics started about the 1st Amendment would be moved.

Having said that there has been plenty of discussion with in a number of threads about the erosion of our other rights. We voted our rights back, at least that is my hope. I'm sure it would have made you happy for us all to start murdering federal authorities while trying to overthrow the government, gun owners are a little more even keel than yourself though, so instead we worked to put in an administration that would restore our rights. So tell us your plan again for reducing the amount of gun violence in the country while respecting the 2nd Amendment under it's current reading?

David

[tucsonlib]

94. Uh Huh. Gun Owners...

..worked to put in an administration that would restore our rights? Golly gee, I didn't know that. Guess I was asleep when the NRA announced their enthusiastic endorsement and massive contributions to the Obama campaign and other Democratic candidates. Good thing they were big Obama fans or once again the Dems woulda lost the gun vote and hence the election. I reckon.
Or am I mistaken? After all, if the Dems lost in 2000 and 2004 because of the gun issue, wouldn't that support my original contention that a large number of gun owners don't give a hoot about any constitutional rights 'cept one?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. Who said Dems lost in 2000 and 2004 because of guns?

They certainly may have contributed in 2000 but many here don't believe we lost either election. You do realize that gun owners and the NRA are 2 separate entities. I'm not a member of the NRA. Please realize I was talking about the gun owning Democrats here who worked to get Obama elected although I'm sure there are many more. So tell us your plan again for reducing the amount of gun violence in the country while respecting the 2nd Amendment under it's current reading?

David

[tucsonlib]

116. You Keep Asking The Same Question.

I've never said I had any sort of "plan" for reducing the amount of gun violence in the country. You sound like a broken record.

As for "Who said Dems lost in 2000 and 2004 because of guns?" - You're kidding, right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. Are you saying that guns never play an issue in elections?

[iverglas]

123. this would be funny

if it weren't so incredibly dumb.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. I don't think it's very polite of you to call fingrpik dumb.

[iverglas]

126. I'll bet

that was a joke. See, I'm catching on. Everything you've said here is a joke ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Very nice. That's good stuff Iverglas. I almost woke my wife up laughing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. So you just like to bitch about guns?

[Raskolnik]

134. "point me to a single OP here that has addressed the erosion of any freedom other than RKBA"

Where to post various gun-related topics

Edited on Tue Nov-06-07 11:57 AM by Skinner

Since we re-organized our forums, DU now has two forums for discussions relating to Guns and 2nd Amendment issues. Each of those forums has a specific purpose. Help us keep posts on-topic in each of those forums.

Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum.

[tucsonlib]

88. Kudos To Double_Talk_Express!!

I'm surprised that so many regulars here fell into his trap. Re-read his posts, starting with the first one. Now, read them in the context of his user name. Brilliant! Hilarious!

[iverglas]

95. I'd like to ...

But so many of them seem to have gone missing ...

[tucsonlib]

96. Yeah, But Comment #11 Is Still There

His masterpiece. Did you notice that if you read it backwards it makes just as much sense?