|
Post by aboveathletics on Jul 10, 2010 2:24:21 GMT -5
Simply by determining whether or not the use of force is warranted, you're acknowledging their humanity. Their humanity also applies when you judge how much force is warranted. Perhaps you're right, and the term "humanity" is too sweeping. My only point was really that homicide is justifiable in that scenario and they don't deserve to be treated with any kind of compassion we would normally feel towards our fellow human beings.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 10, 2010 2:29:27 GMT -5
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jul 10, 2010 2:41:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 10, 2010 2:50:12 GMT -5
You all know me. I'm down with that. In all seriousness, I can't fathom why it's legal to carry a gun in my state, but not a sword. Or even a dagger. I always thought it had something to do with the use. A gun goes off, everyone hears it and defends or flees. Someone jerks another with a knife...there's not a lot of sound, especially when done right It's like years ago on my way hoe from a reenactment, i had my musket in the trunk, the bayonet was wedged on. cop pulled me over and as he searched he found it, asked what my plans for it were and proceeded to inform me that with the bayo exposed like that it was an illegal weapon....like i was gonna run down the road like a flippin' nut waving a gun at people and sticking them should I catch up
|
|
|
Post by goonerboy on Jul 10, 2010 7:50:27 GMT -5
As an English atheist, it shocks me to see how embedded guns are in a Western society. Guns are completely taboo over here, as far as I know there's masses of red tape to get through to get a license and anyone known to be owning a gun would be immediately reported to the police.
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Jul 10, 2010 8:31:39 GMT -5
I disagree. The whole point of having a second amendment is so that it is possible for a united populace to overpower the police/military. It's not so much about revolution as it is about prevention. If the government tried to round people up and put them into camps in the USA it would be a fucking bloodbath. Thousands of cops would die and they would eventually just say fuck it and back off. In most other countries it could be done with minimal casualties to their side. That's why even armor piercing automatic weapons are a fundamental human right. That might work back in the day of 30 second reloads per shot and the biggest target you'd go up against was another man in wool clothing. Not so now where the military has advanced body armor, fully auto weapons, explosives, missiles, armored vehicles and the like, which are all something the founders could never imagine would come about. Hence why our government has the ability built in to change and modify things as time changes. In terms of the notion that the 2nd amendment is to enable a popular uprising, I do think the need to worry about M.A.D. is greater today compared to this nation's founding. With that said, I think weapons should be limited enough to fight a reasonable guerrilla war, but heavy explosives, WMDs, and weapon equiped vehicles should be out of the question. Though, I do think the later still constitutes as *gasp* "arms" and we should have a formal constitutional amendment that allows for legislative restriction of them, as opposed to depending on judicial rulings.
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 10, 2010 8:32:52 GMT -5
English Atheist Distinctly not Liberal in any sense of the word Pro-firearms
The funny thing here is that we've had a couple of high profile cases of fatal shootings in the news this year and the initial response from everyone is to call for tighter gun control...despite the fact we already have some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world.
More effort in stemming the tide of illegal firearms entering the country would have more effect than making legal and responsible gun owners jump through MORE hoops to keep hold of their licences.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 10, 2010 8:37:35 GMT -5
As an English atheist, it shocks me to see how embedded guns are in a Western society. Guns are completely taboo over here, as far as I know there's masses of red tape to get through to get a license and anyone known to be owning a gun would be immediately reported to the police. Guns aren't as shunned in Canada as they are in the UK, but I must admit, I do experience some culture shock when confronted with American gun culture. I don't mean that in a negative sense. It's just that it's different from what I'm used to.
|
|
|
Post by sithyeti on Jul 10, 2010 8:58:54 GMT -5
Around hunting season kids would come to school with a rifle in their back window, they went out before school and go out after. This was post 9/11 too. It wasn't until 2003 when the school really started to crack down on it, then most just had it under the seat in a pickup or in the back under a tarp.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 10, 2010 9:12:22 GMT -5
^^^ That's the kind of stuff I'm referring to in regards to culture shock.
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Jul 10, 2010 9:32:13 GMT -5
Around hunting season kids would come to school with a rifle in their back window, they went out before school and go out after. This was post 9/11 too. It wasn't until 2003 when the school really started to crack down on it, then most just had it under the seat in a pickup or in the back under a tarp. Please say this isn't a place where kids get suspended for drawing pictures of guns in class. That kind of hypocrisy would be asinine.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 10, 2010 10:41:22 GMT -5
I don't have any problem with firearms, though I really don't think automatic and/or armor piercing weapons should be available to the public. There's absolutely no reason for the average person to have that kind of firepower. I disagree. The whole point of having a second amendment is so that it is possible for a united populace to overpower the police/military. It's not so much about revolution as it is about prevention. If the government tried to round people up and put them into camps in the USA it would be a fucking bloodbath. Thousands of cops would die and they would eventually just say fuck it and back off. In most other countries it could be done with minimal casualties to their side. That's why even armor piercing automatic weapons are a fundamental human right. Uh huh, and what are you going to do about a M1 Abrams? Also, learn some more about history, preferably about a certain war in the middle of the 19th century.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Jul 10, 2010 10:42:58 GMT -5
So when an authority figure uses any force, even if they're defending themselves against an attacker, it's unacceptable... but if a civilian uses armor-piercing bullets, it's perfectly okay? Cops are human beings as well. Is it not their fundamental human right to defend themselves? Not in a semi-legitimate framework like we have now, but they forfeit their humanity when they attack the innocent. In a totalitarian scenario, the security forces do not deserve to be considered human beings as far as I'm concerned. Real life isn't like the movies you know.
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Jul 10, 2010 14:18:28 GMT -5
Uh huh, and what are you going to do about a M1 Abrams? Also, learn some more about history, preferably about a certain war in the middle of the 19th century. Perhaps he should learn more about warfare during 21st century rather than something from time when warfare was mostly standing in line and getting shot. And M1 can be stopped with an reasonably well-made IED.
|
|
|
Post by sithyeti on Jul 10, 2010 14:21:06 GMT -5
Around hunting season kids would come to school with a rifle in their back window, they went out before school and go out after. This was post 9/11 too. It wasn't until 2003 when the school really started to crack down on it, then most just had it under the seat in a pickup or in the back under a tarp. Please say this isn't a place where kids get suspended for drawing pictures of guns in class. That kind of hypocrisy would be asinine. As far as I know that hasn't happened where I went to school.
|
|