Author Topic: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...  (Read 11266 times)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #100 on: June 01, 2022, 02:10:58 PM »
Is there enough evidence to prove any given person in particular was doing the shooting beyond a reasonable doubt? The video is apparently not clear enough to establish the persons identity. What's good enough for the public or politicians isn't necessarily good enough for the courts.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2022, 02:17:49 PM »
If that were the case then there would be no need to mention "mutual combat" at all.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #102 on: June 01, 2022, 02:33:30 PM »
Evidence of what?

There was plenty of evidence that these people were shooting at each other in the street.

The thing the DA was saying is that there wasn't enough evidence that shooting at each other in the street was against the law as long as they all agreed with each other that it was okay which is why she used the term mutual combat. Shouldn't they also have to get the consent of everyone else around there who might get shot by a stray bullet? And if there are children they can't give consent so their parents have to do it and in writing in the presence of a public notary. I highly doubt that all of the necessary protocols were followed to get a mutual combat public shootout duly authorized in accordance with the law.

They must have some very interesting gun laws in Chicago because even in Texas that wouldn't fly. Surely charges of reckless endangerment are the least we could expect. Not to mention checking to see that everyone who was firing a gun was able to legally possess one.

Well, they speculate about that evidence but its not like the DA laid it out in the article. The police mentioned lack of cooperation, so presumably no witnesses? Were they suspects because of evidence, or because word got around that this is what happened? Unfortunately the gun lobby has made sure you can defend yourself with a gun, thus the mutual combatant thing. If nobody can identify who fired first, I assume everybody there, especially the people in the house, would just be "good guys with guns". Can we prove who was holding a gun, and who was not? Possession charges can't be established without that.

Okay, I found a free article about the shooting and the dismissal. abc

Quote
CHICAGO SHOOTING
Chicago violence: Prosecutors reject charges in deadly gang-related Austin shooting
Mayor Lightfoot calls on Cook County State's Attorney to file charges; Kim Foxx pushes back
By Craig Wall
Monday, October 4, 2021

EMBED <>MORE VIDEOS
Prosecutors rejected charges against suspects in a deadly gang-related Chicago shooting in Austin.

CHICAGO (WLS) -- There is an outcry from the mayor and some Chicago aldermen after men linked by police to a deadly gang shootout in Austin last week were released from custody. Prosecutors declined to charge each of them with a pair of felonies, including first-degree murder.

The mid-morning gunfight, which left one shooter dead and two of the suspects wounded, stemmed from an internal dispute between two gang factions, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

New video from city pod cameras shows what police say is two people pulling up and opening fire at an Austin home. They ducked for cover as the people inside fired back. One person was killed and two others were hurt in the shootout. Three people were arrested.

Police sought to charge all suspects with murder and aggravated battery. By Sunday morning, a Chicago police spokeswoman acknowledged the suspects had "been released without charges."

The Cook County state's attorney's office explained that prosecutors had "determined that the evidence was insufficient to meet our burden of proof to approve felony charges," a state's attorney's office spokeswoman said, adding that police officials agreed with the decision.

Note, having these cameras at all are opposed by "tough on crime" conservatives. Again, if you can't definitively say who started the violence, it may fall into this "mutual combat" definition.

Quote
Last week, Cook County prosecutors came under fire after making a similar argument after a teenager was stabbed to death during a fight in suburban Schaumburg. The family of the victim, 18-year-old Manuel Porties Jr., later told WGN that prosecutors specifically said they weren't charging the 17-year-old suspect with murder because the fatal fight amounted to mutual combat.

Did they screw that one up too? Look, I'm happy to entertain the idea that better enforcement could be done there, I'm happy to review reports, studies, whitepapers no matter how partisan that try to correlate any of those factors to gun violence. But Chicago has solved their school shooting problem by hardening all the schools primarily. Inner cities have a better ability to screen students entering the school because schools they are high-density and it isn't a large budgetary concern.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #103 on: June 01, 2022, 02:38:22 PM »
If nothing else it seems like they could at least charge them with disturbing the peace. Of if they didn't pick up their shell casings then at least get a fine for littering.

If it was so obvious that the OK Corral gang shouldn't be charged then why would Mayor Lightfoot get publicly outraged about it and express her vehement disagreement?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #104 on: June 01, 2022, 02:40:01 PM »
Why would a politician grandstand without regards to the facts? Uh. Do you seriously need that question answered?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #105 on: June 01, 2022, 03:22:56 PM »
If nothing else it seems like they could at least charge them with disturbing the peace. Of if they didn't pick up their shell casings then at least get a fine for littering.

If it was so obvious that the OK Corral gang shouldn't be charged then why would Mayor Lightfoot get publicly outraged about it and express her vehement disagreement?

Maybe the identity of the suspects is more in question than they are publicly admitting. Maybe they're still trying to get someone to testify against someone else.  Maybe the DA or police screwed this one up and the Democratic mayor and city council are taking them to task over it. Whatever you think your learning about Chicago's systematic and long term enforcement of gun laws (which is where this claim started) can't be learned looking at a single case. And if the shooters were under 20 they may not have a felony conviction on their record yet. And if the guns used weren't recovered then prosecution for any gun crime would be difficult.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #106 on: June 01, 2022, 03:35:56 PM »
Update

Quote
Thomas Dean, 20, was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon after he was found with three guns used in the shooting, according to police. Foxx said at least one was a “machine gun.”

So with additional evidence, they did charge him?

Quote
The investigation remains open and more charges are expected “in the coming days,” Foxx said, noting that a search warrant was approved for another suspect.

Hm, so they want to try and find him with guns, or are they trying to warn him to get rid of them?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #107 on: June 03, 2022, 11:54:15 AM »
AR-15s are good at killing a lot of people all at once. Perfect for mass killers, drug dealers, gang members. Rarely a needed capability for home defense, and utterly useless defending oneself against a criminal in open ground.

You have a really weird interpretation of what these guns are capable or not capable of - neither grounded in the reality of them.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #108 on: June 03, 2022, 11:57:48 AM »
AR-15s are good at killing a lot of people all at once. Perfect for mass killers, drug dealers, gang members. Rarely a needed capability for home defense, and utterly useless defending oneself against a criminal in open ground.

You have a really weird interpretation of what these guns are capable or not capable of - neither grounded in the reality of them.

They are really good at firing a lot of very deadly rounds in a short amount of time into crowds of people. They aren't super accurate for target shooting or hunting. The rounds pass through walls making them poor for home self defense. They are great at killing a lot of people at close to medium range, you know mass killing style. They really suck for almost any other purpose.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #109 on: June 03, 2022, 11:58:11 AM »
No, you'll note they aren't run by the State of Michigan.

While there are groups that call themselves a militia, they're just aping the form (or more charitably applying a different definition) in order to sound legitimate.

Do you have a link or reference to a 'real militia' in the sense you mean it?

Perhaps the Texas Military Forces is an example.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #110 on: June 03, 2022, 12:07:36 PM »
Well this is what the Bushmaster advertises:

Quote
Koskoff noted the assault rifle was touted as the must-have weapon for any firefight, boasting that opponents were "single-handedly outnumbered" by an owner toting an AR-15.

Lanza used the AR-15 to fire 154 bullets in about five minutes, executing 20 first-grade students and six staffers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School during his Dec. 14, 2012 rampage.

Now you tell me what it was designed for. Opponents is plural. Being able to fire a round every 2 seconds is designed to be able to hit a lot of targets (people) in a short amount of time. That capability is the capability of killing about 4 first-graders per minute.

Quote
The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

Designed as an infantryman's rifle, and became the M16 in its full auto iteration. An infantryman needs to be able to kill as many enemies as possible in a short amount of time in order to achieve their objective.

You can use it to hunt, or for home defense, or shooting targets. But what it is very capable of is allowing a single individual to kill a lot of people, including at a distance.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #111 on: June 03, 2022, 12:15:13 PM »
AR-15s are good at killing a lot of people all at once. Perfect for mass killers, drug dealers, gang members. Rarely a needed capability for home defense, and utterly useless defending oneself against a criminal in open ground.

You have a really weird interpretation of what these guns are capable or not capable of - neither grounded in the reality of them.

They are really good at firing a lot of very deadly rounds in a short amount of time into crowds of people. They aren't super accurate for target shooting or hunting. The rounds pass through walls making them poor for home self defense. They are great at killing a lot of people at close to medium range, you know mass killing style. They really suck for almost any other purpose.

Let's break it down:
1. They are really good at firing a lot of very deadly rounds in a short amount of time into crowds of people. Can you tell me why this gun is particularly good at it and better than any other semi-automatic? Specifically, what makes it so much more deadly than any other semi-automatic gun like a Glock 9mm?
2. They aren't super accurate for target shooting or hunting. The effective range of an AR-15 chambered for .223 is around 600 yards. The 5.56 will get you out to about 900 yards. Being what is apparently the deadliest weapon ever created, it's lethality in hunting is unparalleled.
3. They are great at killing a lot of people at close to medium range, you know mass killing style. And? So is a semi-auto shotgun or handgun (I've seen extended magazines for Glocks that hold 30 or more rounds. No effective difference at close range and mass casualty - most "mass killings" occur with just such a handgun and this style of gun is the most popular among criminals.
5. They really suck for almost any other purpose. They are exceptional for pretty much everything you'd want to do with a gun, very versatile with lots of aftermarket support for things like optics or a million other things.
6. The rounds pass through walls making them poor for home self defense. This is what CNN tells you but you need to inform yourself:
Quote
Actually, and perhaps counter-intuitively, over-penetration is less of a problem with .223 than it is with a typical handgun round. The reason why is because of the lighter weight of the bullet. Because the 55-grain bullet is so much lighter than the 115- or 124-grain bullets typical of 9MM cartridges, the bullet will lose velocity much faster once it hits a solid or semi-solid object. Real-world testing has corroborated this theory, and in some tests, .223 was even less prone to over-penetration than 12-gauge buckshot. If you are concerned about over-penetration, your AR-15 is actually a better choice than your Glock 22.




Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #112 on: June 03, 2022, 12:19:15 PM »
Well this is what the Bushmaster advertises:

Quote
Koskoff noted the assault rifle was touted as the must-have weapon for any firefight, boasting that opponents were "single-handedly outnumbered" by an owner toting an AR-15.

Lanza used the AR-15 to fire 154 bullets in about five minutes, executing 20 first-grade students and six staffers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School during his Dec. 14, 2012 rampage.

Now you tell me what it was designed for. Opponents is plural. Being able to fire a round every 2 seconds is designed to be able to hit a lot of targets (people) in a short amount of time. That capability is the capability of killing about 4 first-graders per minute.
A semiauto handgun does exactly the same thing. With an extended magazine, I can probably be more effective than an AR-15 in close quarters.


Quote
The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

Designed as an infantryman's rifle, and became the M16 in its full auto iteration. An infantryman needs to be able to kill as many enemies as possible in a short amount of time in order to achieve their objective.

You can use it to hunt, or for home defense, or shooting targets. But what it is very capable of is allowing a single individual to kill a lot of people, including at a distance.

First off, let's not confuse marketing with reality. If this was designed for infantry and is so very good at killing, why is there not a single military in the world using it?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #113 on: June 03, 2022, 04:11:11 PM »
Well this is what the Bushmaster advertises:

Quote
Koskoff noted the assault rifle was touted as the must-have weapon for any firefight, boasting that opponents were "single-handedly outnumbered" by an owner toting an AR-15.

Lanza used the AR-15 to fire 154 bullets in about five minutes, executing 20 first-grade students and six staffers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School during his Dec. 14, 2012 rampage.

Now you tell me what it was designed for. Opponents is plural. Being able to fire a round every 2 seconds is designed to be able to hit a lot of targets (people) in a short amount of time. That capability is the capability of killing about 4 first-graders per minute.
A semiauto handgun does exactly the same thing. With an extended magazine, I can probably be more effective than an AR-15 in close quarters.


Quote
The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

Designed as an infantryman's rifle, and became the M16 in its full auto iteration. An infantryman needs to be able to kill as many enemies as possible in a short amount of time in order to achieve their objective.

You can use it to hunt, or for home defense, or shooting targets. But what it is very capable of is allowing a single individual to kill a lot of people, including at a distance.

First off, let's not confuse marketing with reality. If this was designed for infantry and is so very good at killing, why is there not a single military in the world using it?

IIRC the M16 had serious reliability problems in the jungles of Vietnam. Reliability matters a lot more to a soldier than the mass shooter, but its capability until it jams is quite nice. Most budget military settled on the AK47, which is reported to take quite a beating. According to Wikipedia, The M16A3 and M16A4 are in active service, including with the Navy Seals.

Range is of course relevant, I think line of sight in a school is less than 600 yards.

Can someone do the same damage with a pistol? Possibly. That's why it would be a good idea to not have those high capacity magazines, that are also designed to kill a lot of people. But it seems there's a reason why mass shooters go out of their way to get an AR-15, that has just as much to do with their perception of its capability as its objective ability. For someone untrained, the longer sight radius means they'll probably be more accurate with the AR-15.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #114 on: June 03, 2022, 04:23:37 PM »
Quote
It would take the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) – the tech-focused Pentagon arm today known as DARPA – to assure the AR-15’s future as a combat weapon. It lobbied Pentagon brass to secure 1,000 rifles for use by South Vietnamese troops and their American special-forces trainers in 1961. The rifle surpassed all expectations in combat. And by August 1962, ARPA had issued a confidential report on the weapon’s performance in war.

The AR-15 suited the “violent short clashes at close ranges which are characteristic of guerrilla warfare in Vietnam,” ARPA reported, noting that this “extremely mobile type of offensive warfare” had placed a “high premium on small, lightweight weapons.” The AR-15 is now marketed as a macho gun; a notorious Bushmaster ad touts the rifle with the slogan “Consider your man card reissued.” But ARPA praised the weapon as “well-suited to the small stature of the Vietnamese,” whose “average soldier,” it reported, “stands five feet tall and weighs 90 pounds.”

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #115 on: June 03, 2022, 04:54:05 PM »
Quote
Can someone do the same damage with a pistol? Possibly.
Of course they can, no possibly about it. In fact, a typical handgun bullet is more deadly than the .223.


Quote
That's why it would be a good idea to not have those high capacity magazines, that are also designed to kill a lot of people.
No, they are designed to allow you to fire without reloading so often. Nobody sat down and designed the magazine to enable killing as many people as possible.  ::)

This is like arguing that the brush guards on large pick-up trucks are designed to kill people when you ram through a crowd.  ::)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #116 on: June 03, 2022, 05:51:10 PM »
Quote
Can someone do the same damage with a pistol? Possibly.
Of course they can, no possibly about it. In fact, a typical handgun bullet is more deadly than the .223.


Quote
That's why it would be a good idea to not have those high capacity magazines, that are also designed to kill a lot of people.
No, they are designed to allow you to fire without reloading so often. Nobody sat down and designed the magazine to enable killing as many people as possible.  ::)

This is like arguing that the brush guards on large pick-up trucks are designed to kill people when you ram through a crowd.  ::)

The question is WHY do you need that magazine? What is it FOR? Is it to defend yourself against an assailant? How many rounds do you need to pump into his torso? Tell me other than killing a lot of people as an aggressor, you would want to have a high capacity magazine and avoid reload time? A reload pause has been the window of opportunity that people use to subdue a mass shooter.

The stock answer, by the way, for people defending these magazines is to describe a scenario with multiple assailants needing to be killed, or fighting off a mob. In other words, killing a large number of people. Whether offensively or defensively.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #117 on: June 04, 2022, 10:30:04 AM »
Look, you can keep demonstrating how little you know about this all you want but I strongly suggest you dig into this issue beyond CNN talking points.

The reason I need it is none of your business. It’s my right to have it and I can have it for any reason or no reason at all. My right is mine to exercise in any way I see fit. Someone getting a sad about it is utterly irrelevant to my innate human right of self defense. That’s the way rights work.

The second amendment did not create this right, it recognizes and protects it. I would have this right even if the second amendment did not exist. Self defense, even against a government, is an intrinsic right of being a human being.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #118 on: June 04, 2022, 02:05:13 PM »
Would you therefore argue, Crunch, that anything which makes self-defense more convenient for you should be legal? Are there limits to your intrinsic right to self-defense, beyond which it becomes unreasonable for you to assert that something is being done for your own protection, or do you and you alone have the right to establish what constitutes a reasonable defense of your self and your property?

Also: are all rights intrinsic, or are some in fact created/maintained by the Constitution? If the latter, which ones? I find this especially interesting because the Second Amendment does not address self-defense at all; do you believe that's because the right to self-defense is so intrinsic that it doesn't need to be mentioned as a justification for private weapon ownership?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2022, 02:09:21 PM by Tom »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #119 on: June 04, 2022, 02:12:01 PM »
Also: are all rights intrinsic, or are some in fact created/maintained by the Constitution?

Good question, a topic I've tried to bring up from time to time. If there is such a thing as an intrinsic right, what is the source (or the material substance) of its reality? If rights follow from some sort of law or fact, it's difficult to distinguish between man-made law and some other kind of law (e.g. nature, divine, etc) without being clear about what each of these might actually be so that we can be sure they are at least decently well-defined. Is the idea of a right to self-defense, for instance, a 'right' in the sense that there is an eternal truth about life such that this right follows necessarily from it, or is it merely a useful pragmatic artifact of language that describes the fact that life forms will tend to try to perpetuate themselves?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #120 on: June 04, 2022, 07:15:12 PM »
Look, you can keep demonstrating how little you know about this all you want but I strongly suggest you dig into this issue beyond CNN talking points.

The reason I need it is none of your business. It’s my right to have it and I can have it for any reason or no reason at all. My right is mine to exercise in any way I see fit. Someone getting a sad about it is utterly irrelevant to my innate human right of self defense. That’s the way rights work.

The second amendment did not create this right, it recognizes and protects it. I would have this right even if the second amendment did not exist. Self defense, even against a government, is an intrinsic right of being a human being.

You don't have a right to a gatling gun, grenades, fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, . I'm just gonna work with my pals to take one more off the list. In fact we already did take it off the list between 1994-2004, and it already passed constitutional muster, so you can keep demonstrating how little you know about the Constitution.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again
« Reply #121 on: June 05, 2022, 12:28:56 PM »
Where in the constitution does it provide a listing of approved weapons? You’re coming up with the “they only meant muskets” argument and that is definitively not true. I have the ability to exercise my right in any way I see fit. You don’t get to decide the limits on my rights.

And yes, an unconstitutional restriction on the 2A made it through but here’s the fun part, it can still be challenged and, just like the alleged pending turnover of Roe v Wade, it will be. Just like Heller. Six more months of Bidenflation and economic destruction and the potential red wave that’s coming may change those restrictions.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #122 on: June 05, 2022, 12:51:37 PM »
Quote
I have the ability to exercise my right in any way I see fit. You don’t get to decide the limits on my rights.
So that answers the first half of my question. You are asserting, therefore, that you have an unlimited right to self-defense. May I ask whether this right kicks in only when your life is immediately threatened, or is anything that you do proactively to make it easier to defend yourself from future potential threats also guaranteed by this right?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #123 on: June 05, 2022, 05:53:46 PM »
All this talk of rights reminded me of George Carlin's bit on 'rights'

Quote
Boy, everyone in this country is always running around, yammering about their *censored*ing rights. I have a right. You have no right. We have a right. They don’t a have right.

Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there’s no such thing as rights, OK. They’re imaginary. We made them up, like the Boogie Man, the Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, Mother Goose, *censored* like that. Rights are an idea. They’re just imaginary. They’re a cute idea. Cute but that’s all. Cute and fictional. But if you think you do have rights let me ask you this, where do they come from?

People say, “Well, they come from God. They’re God-given rights.” Oh, *censored*, here we go again. Here we go again. The God excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, “They came from God.” Anything we can’t describe must have come from God. Personally, folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would have given you the right to some food every day, and he would have given you the right to a roof over your head. God would have been looking out for you. God would have been looking out for you, you know that? He wouldn’t have been worrying about making sure you have a gun so you can get drunk on Sunday night and kill your girlfriend’s parents. But let’s say it’s true. Let’s say God gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights?

The Bill of Rights in this country has ten stipulations, OK? Ten rights. And apparently, God was doing sloppy work that week because we’ve had to amend the Bill of Rights an additional 17 times, so God forgot a couple of things like slavery. Just *censored*ing slipped his mind. But let’s say God gave us the original ten. He gave the British 13. The British Bill of Rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29. The Belgians have 25. The Swedish have only 6. And some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a *censored*ing, *censored*, God-given deal is that? No rights at all? Why would God give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn’t sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America.

Now, if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for you. Next time you’re at the computer, get on the internet. Go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in Japanese Americans 1942, and you’ll find out all about your precious *censored*ing rights, OK? All right. You know about it. You know about it. Yeah. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had? Right this way, into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away, and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.


And then he takes a leap:

Quote
Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. I think either we have unlimited rights or we have no rights at all. Personally, I lean toward unlimited rights. I feel, for instance, I have the right to do anything I please. But if I do something you don’t like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you going to find a fairer *censored*ing deal than that? So the next time some *censored* says to you, “I have a right to my opinion, “you say, “Oh yeah? Well I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion.” Then shoot the *censored* and walk away. Thank you.

A young boy with to easy access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a short span of time says "Oh Yeah" I have 'rights' and pulls the trigger...

Rights, rights, rights with no responsibility, unconditional rights, what fools are we.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #124 on: June 05, 2022, 08:01:47 PM »
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away, and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.

This is a strong point, but I'm not sure he was making the point he thought he was making. The point I believe he was making isn't that there aren't inherent rights, but that governments are not being entirely honest when their list of "rights" are touted as being "the rights" (i.e. the intrinsic ones). It may well be the case that the government list is indeed a list of temporary privileges in practice, since concerns like 'security' and 'expediency' will trump those "rights" every time. But that doesn't actually mean the people don't have inherent rights, it just means that the word as used by government is a false or self-deluded use of the term.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #125 on: June 05, 2022, 08:26:35 PM »
This is actually why I dislike speaking of "rights" as things to which people are entitled and prefer instead to speak of ethical and legal obligations borne by members of a given society. As members of American society, we are obligated to recognize and permit certain behaviors from fellow Americans; as humans, perhaps we are further obligated to permit certain behaviors of fellow humans. The concept of a "right" falls apart if you poke at it too hard, but I'm okay with thinking of them as duties expected of the other people around you.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #126 on: June 05, 2022, 08:46:17 PM »
This is actually why I dislike speaking of "rights" as things to which people are entitled and prefer instead to speak of ethical and legal obligations borne by members of a given society. As members of American society, we are obligated to recognize and permit certain behaviors from fellow Americans; as humans, perhaps we are further obligated to permit certain behaviors of fellow humans. The concept of a "right" falls apart if you poke at it too hard, but I'm okay with thinking of them as duties expected of the other people around you.

I personally wouldn't exactly put it this way, because it does linguistically skirt around the issue of why people supposedly have these obligations; but I like that your distinction at least gets rid of the sense of a right as an entitlement and frames it as an innate duty that is performed. So instead of "you get this stuff" which feels like you're owed something, it feels like you owe something to others, which in turn brings up interesting questions if you're not religious. Religion already entails a notion of debt - especially in consideration of concepts like original sin - but in secular terms it would be interesting indeed to have to justify in material terms how you could possibly be born inheriting a debt to pay to others in perpetuity. And more, this entire concept begs the question of what happens (or what it implies of you) if you renege on this debt. For example, let's say we were to submit the following as an axiom:

-In order to recognize the inherent dignity of another person you must afford them XYZ.

If you fail to do this, does it imply that you are denying them this dignity, i.e. that they in fact no longer have it? That's what one might conclude if for instance we observe torture technique. However this conclusion would lead to terrible conclusions that I won't go into. So maybe a better framing would be this:

-In order to recognize your own inherent dignity you must afford another person XYZ.

According to this version you cannot actually deny someone that inherent dignity, but somehow that by failing to afford them XYZ you are denying yourself *your* inherent dignity. This is a counter-intuitive axiom, but it would mean your status becomes defined by your treatment of others, not their treatment of you. And this does seem like a good direction to move the argument (and incidentally it also accords better with Judeo-Christian and even Buddhist thought) rather than to frame it as something you demand of others like a king commanding his slaves. What it might mean to demean yourself by denying yourself your own dignity would require quite an exposition, especially if we were using a purely materialist framework. In fact I would very much like to see a serious attempt at that.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #127 on: June 05, 2022, 09:48:54 PM »
I feel like the concept of "inherent dignity" perhaps begs the (unnecessarily complicated) question, so I would say instead that acknowledging your debts to others is the price of belonging to a society.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2022, 10:02:16 PM »
I feel like the concept of "inherent dignity" perhaps begs the (unnecessarily complicated) question, so I would say instead that acknowledging your debts to others is the price of belonging to a society.

It's important, then, to make sure whether you mean rights are something that a society can violate if they treat you a certain way, versus merely being defined as a deal made with the state (and by this I include the populace). If it's merely a social convention, or a deal, then by definition the state cannot transgress on your rights no matter what they do, so long as it is made 'legal' by that government and so long as the populace appears not to directly oppose it. How this definition could be inspected in lieu of a state where regular people disagree but are afraid to say so (therefore you can't prove they disagree) is a question. In theory if we construct rights merely as a social price then we might be able to derive the conclusion that, for instance, the Nazis violated no ones rights during WWII because they were operating within their own legitimate mandate as a government, and part of their 'deal' was that certain persons were not welcome to the society. Hypothetically we could come to that construction. Practically speaking I would throw out any definition of "rights" that can be altered by fiat in order to subject you to whatever the state decides. Taking that to its full conclusion it would seem to me (and this is a highly simplistic sketch of an argument) that any definition of "rights" that allows it to rest merely on an understood rapport with one's government makes it not mean much more than Carlin implied in the above quote. And that is not of much use vis a vis ethics that you cannot choose to ignore.

But maybe you were only talking person-to-person and not about government at all?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #129 on: June 05, 2022, 10:10:38 PM »
Quote
If it's merely a social convention, or a deal, then by definition the state cannot transgress on your rights no matter what they do, so long as it is made 'legal' by that government...
As you note, where this all gets messy is when you try to decide whether there are "rights" owed to people regardless of the society in which they find themselves, and whether there's any mechanism by which this can be enforced. I'd argue that certainly some societies will assert that certain obligations are universal and may even expect that members of not only their own society but other societies to acknowledge those obligations -- and that sometimes, when these obligations are not met, that the dispute escalates to some form of violence intended to compel compliance. I suspect that religious epistemologies (and other epistemologies that base their truth claims on similarly untestable appeals to a hypothetical unimpeachable authority) have the advantage, since they encounter little philosophical difficulty in asserting that their sociological priorities should be universal. This is certainly harder if you accept that multiple societies with differing priorities are entitled to existence, especially if in your view a given society's positions are actively harmful.

I don't think governments intersect with rights at all, except insofar as they represent the use of coercion to enforce societal obligation. In Western society, one of the obligations we recognize is that people should be entitled to engage in different behaviors -- up to a point, of course -- of which the majority might not approve, and we have chosen to authorize the government to compel those who might actively work to suppress those behaviors to tolerate those behaviors instead. We call those "rights" because it sounds less complicated.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2022, 10:12:55 PM by Tom »

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #130 on: June 05, 2022, 10:17:26 PM »
But bringing this back to Crunch's assertion of an unlimited right to self-defense, I'm not sure how an argument for such a thing can be coherently framed. I can understand it as something that someone might arrogate to themselves, but if one attempts (again, as I generally do) to frame it in reverse as a public obligation, it very rapidly appears monstrous.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #131 on: June 06, 2022, 12:21:43 AM »
But bringing this back to Crunch's assertion of an unlimited right to self-defense, I'm not sure how an argument for such a thing can be coherently framed. I can understand it as something that someone might arrogate to themselves, but if one attempts (again, as I generally do) to frame it in reverse as a public obligation, it very rapidly appears monstrous.

To avoid a protracted rabbit hole (and assuming I'm invited to continue my own line while Crunch may separately engage in his) I'll just focus on this. If we use the two maneuvers mentioned above (1) frame it as an agreement amongst enlightened people, rather than as a baked-in fact of the universe, and (2) reverse the direction so that it's an obligation toward others rather than something one demands for oneself, then we could get to this perhaps: that a right to self-defense should properly be called the obligation to ensure that your neighbor is not rendered helpless against his will. This would give room for a few cases:

-Your neighbor does not want to physically protect or defend himself. In this case being rendered helpless would not be against such a person's will. Then you need do nothing. Let's call this person a pacifist.
-Your neighbor would like to be able to physically fend off aggressors as the case may be; in this case your duty would be to ensure he is not restrained from doing so (by law, by physical force, or by threat). Let's call this person a pragmatist.

The third case is curious:

-Your neighbor does not want to engage in violence at all, nor does he want violence employed against him. In short he doesn't want to be helpless, and also doesn't want to have to use force.

In case #3 your neighbor cannot be allowed to be rendered incapable of defending himself, but as his priority is to avoid violence entirely you would need to additionally (as your neighborly duty) take steps to avoid on his behalf any aggression. And this neighbor we might call an enlightened thinker, in the sense that he doesn't want the problem framed in terms of who can do violence to whom.

And I think there is room here to argue that the "right to self-defense" framed with the initial 2 criteria (social agreement, and duty) could therefore possibly get us to a destination where it becomes your obligation and duty to your neighbor to see to it that threats to people in general are minimized. So rather than it being an in-person duty that takes place in a physical scenario, it would become a duty related to systemic operation in the society. So long as you are ensuring the person is not rendered helpless against their will I would say this fulfills the obligation toward that person's physical security. That the person in question may or may not wield actual weapons in the process would be incidental and not core to this proposition.

If we see it this way then the 'right to bear arms' would only be a special case of the obligation to your neighbor's physical security from attack, where there are scenarios you cannot help with. So it would be a pragmatic band-aid. Like for instance, even if the society was a utopia one could not account for the odd lunatic who acted irrationally even though he had everything he wanted. In such cases he might attack someone else for no discernable reason, and the person assailed might feel incapable of defending himself without a weapon.

But let's look for a moment at the more likely argument: that a person wants to defend themselves with firearms because they actually do not trust their neighbor to fulfill their duty to assure their safety. The recent school shooting where the police stood by and did nothing would be an example of a loss of public trust in the general notion that 'someone' is looking out for them. And in Crunch's defense, it's difficult to define how much of the stated 'right to self-defense' exists in context of a general lack of trust in others to do what's right. If that's true then it means this right, if it is a social agreement, can't be defined in a vacuum.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #132 on: June 06, 2022, 08:30:55 AM »
Now you guys tell s how the right to life, to be equal, prohibiting slavery, etc are conditional.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #133 on: June 06, 2022, 08:35:01 AM »
It’s not my neighbor or limited individuals I need to defend myself from so much. My primary self defense need is against governments - the biggest mass murderers in history and it’s not even close.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #134 on: June 06, 2022, 09:29:44 AM »
Quote
Now you guys tell s how the right to life, to be equal, prohibiting slavery, etc are conditional.
Do you believe people have the "right to be equal?" What does that mean?
What right or rights are codified in the prohibition of slavery? Is there a right to only engage in voluntary labor?
And does it count as a conditional right if you can forfeit it through sufficient wrong? Can we compel prisoners to labor in work camps, or sentence murderers to death? Can you lose multiple inherent rights by, say, partaking of a drug your society has asked government to prohibit?

Let's turn around the "I have the right to defend myself from the government" assertion. What, then, are you asking your fellow citizens to grant? That you are entitled to kill them if they, as agents of the government, do things you dislike strongly enough?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #135 on: June 06, 2022, 10:10:30 AM »
Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away, and rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.

This is a strong point, but I'm not sure he was making the point he thought he was making. The point I believe he was making isn't that there aren't inherent rights, but that governments are not being entirely honest when their list of "rights" are touted as being "the rights" (i.e. the intrinsic ones). It may well be the case that the government list is indeed a list of temporary privileges in practice, since concerns like 'security' and 'expediency' will trump those "rights" every time. But that doesn't actually mean the people don't have inherent rights, it just means that the word as used by government is a false or self-deluded use of the term.

The government of the people by the people. When the 'rights of the Japanese American's were taken away the people stood by and accepted - continued to vote for those in power that implemented the measures.   We like to blame the big bad 'government' for the horrors of things like slavery as WE would never do such things but the people hold some responsibility about holding those we put into power accountable. That we are easily mislead and manipulated is on the individual.

I think one of the points Carlin was making was that even at a individual level rights our a construct of our own making. All men are created equal - except.... a contradiction set at the birth of the nation and instead of dealing with it we involve ourselves in the semantic discussion of the word 'equal' and 'men'.

Within any social contract rights ought to be viewed as privileges not entitlements we have no responsibility for.

Entitled as we our to our 'rights' Is it no wonder when a young person becomes angry enough to use his 'rights' to take away others  right to life? All these mixed messages.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #136 on: June 06, 2022, 10:48:38 AM »
It’s not my neighbor or limited individuals I need to defend myself from so much. My primary self defense need is against governments - the biggest mass murderers in history and it’s not even close.

So, then, I take it if you had been one of the Japanese citizens being rounded up, that you would have done your best to kill as many police and soldiers as possible? That's the kind of solution you were talking about? Antifa is actually doing what they are supposed to be doing, violent revolution to force government to behave themselves? The Australians should have kept their guns and killed the people forcing them into quarantine?

Meanwhile, a violent revolution doesn't guarantee a well behaved government. Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea. All products of violent revolution. If you ensure that you have the means to overthrow the government, then that means your communist neighbor does also. I guess he should be able to build an IED, though, because how else other than individual violence are we supposed to defend rights?

You cosplay Patrick Henrys aren't going to stand a chance against a fully equipped platoon of United States Marines. Red Dawn was just a movie, and not a very good one. The Southern states had every weapon possible, an entire army, and they still couldn't overthrow their tyrannical government. Meanwhile, clinging to your revolution fantasy is putting kids in graves.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #137 on: June 06, 2022, 11:09:39 AM »
 "I have a right. You have no right. We have a right. They don’t a have right"
The Mass murdering "government" I must protect myself from and replace with ?????? will not become a mass murdering "government"

My rights not your rights, my government not your government... 
My government wont' be a government? 

We really are entitled pricks. My opinions, my rights, my choices, my 'freedom'.... frack any social contract. Me, me, me.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #138 on: June 06, 2022, 11:28:14 AM »
I think if we're going to be fair to Crunch as he attempts to argue on behalf of his position, we shouldn't impute motives to him or labels like "entitled prick." We've seen little in this thread to suggest that he believes that no social contract, explicit or implicit, accrues to him. I certainly understand and sympathize with the observation that governments are capable of tyranny and extreme violence, even directed at their own citizens, and that citizens might well desire to have the ability to deter that violence through the threat of their own.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #139 on: June 06, 2022, 12:14:45 PM »
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #140 on: June 06, 2022, 12:22:40 PM »
It’s not my neighbor or limited individuals I need to defend myself from so much. My primary self defense need is against governments - the biggest mass murderers in history and it’s not even close.

So, then, I take it if you had been one of the Japanese citizens being rounded up, that you would have done your best to kill as many police and soldiers as possible? That's the kind of solution you were talking about? Antifa is actually doing what they are supposed to be doing, violent revolution to force government to behave themselves? The Australians should have kept their guns and killed the people forcing them into quarantine?

Would have done my best to kill as many as possible? Good strawman! But, ummm, your hypothetical that if I was Japanese and that if I was alive in 1942 and if I was actually "rounded up" is pretty much irrelvant.

Meanwhile, a violent revolution doesn't guarantee a well behaved government. Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea. All products of violent revolution. If you ensure that you have the means to overthrow the government, then that means your communist neighbor does also. I guess he should be able to build an IED, though, because how else other than individual violence are we supposed to defend rights?

You cosplay Patrick Henrys aren't going to stand a chance against a fully equipped platoon of United States Marines. Red Dawn was just a movie, and not a very good one. The Southern states had every weapon possible, an entire army, and they still couldn't overthrow their tyrannical government. Meanwhile, clinging to your revolution fantasy is putting kids in graves.
Really? Let's ask the Taliban if that's true ...

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #141 on: June 06, 2022, 12:29:54 PM »
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

I am not worried about California's state government. I don't live there.

But here's the thing about that ... you guys are not against guns, you don't want them all banned. You just want the state to be the only one that has them. You want the state to have a monopoly on force, with a defenseless and powerless citizenry. No thanks.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #142 on: June 06, 2022, 12:36:43 PM »
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

I am not worried about California's state government. I don't live there.

But here's the thing about that ... you guys are not against guns, you don't want them all banned. You just want the state to be the only one that has them. You want the state to have a monopoly on force, with a defenseless and powerless citizenry. No thanks.

The state has a monopoly on force by law and firepower. Individuals have limited self defense rights to use force. To say that you need enough firepower to hold off a SWAT team, much less a military unit is extreme. And we'll see the death totals in mass shootings continue to go up when people are allowed to drive around with 50 cals and no one can stop them until they start shooting into a crowd.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #143 on: June 06, 2022, 12:46:28 PM »
I don't think it is irrelevant to ask you what conditions would convince you that you will have to exercise this right that you are asserting, Crunch. What scenario do you foresee where you line up a politician in your hallowed gun sights? Or when someone else ought to? I mean, that's what Loughner was doing when he attempted to assassinate Giffords. He was so unstable that his college told him not to come back without proving that he wasn't dangerous with a mental health examination. But because of people like you who need to be able to overthrow the government, he had no problem cruising through his background check. I'm just asking when you're going to pull the trigger, so I can get a feel for why unrestricted access to guns is a good idea.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #144 on: June 06, 2022, 12:48:44 PM »
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

I am not worried about California's state government. I don't live there.

But here's the thing about that ... you guys are not against guns, you don't want them all banned. You just want the state to be the only one that has them. You want the state to have a monopoly on force, with a defenseless and powerless citizenry. No thanks.

Actually, the Defund the Police movement is all about reducing the power of the state's arms. Most people on the liberal side of things would also like to see our military become less powerful.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #145 on: June 06, 2022, 12:51:18 PM »
The state has a monopoly on force by law and firepower.
Not with a well-armed citizenry.
Individuals have limited self defense rights to use force. To say that you need enough firepower to hold off a SWAT team, much less a military unit is extreme.
So you think if a SWAT team shows up at my house they are fully within their legal rights to kill me. Cool, cool, cool. Do they also get to sexually assault my daughter? I mean, they have the guns in your dream world, they can do anything they want, right?

And we'll see the death totals in mass shootings continue to go up when people are allowed to drive around with 50 cals and no one can stop them until they start shooting into a crowd.
Yeah, sure. We've all heard that before. Conceal carry, open carry, constitutional carry - it's gonna be a bloodbath. This is an appeal to emotion and can be safely ignored by rational people.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #146 on: June 06, 2022, 12:54:46 PM »
Let's be clear also, that as soon as a group actually starts behaving as if they might assert the right to violent overthrow, all the powers that be will work to curtail that right. Perhaps you're familiar with the Mulford Act? When the Black Panthers decided that it was a good idea to walk around Sacramento armed, in order to defend themselves against oppression? Republicans, Democrats, Governor Reagan and the NRA quickly moved to disarm them.

I am not worried about California's state government. I don't live there.

But here's the thing about that ... you guys are not against guns, you don't want them all banned. You just want the state to be the only one that has them. You want the state to have a monopoly on force, with a defenseless and powerless citizenry. No thanks.

Actually, the Defund the Police movement is all about reducing the power of the state's arms. Most people on the liberal side of things would also like to see our military become less powerful.

Yeah, and that's been great for everyone! Violent crime is rising to a level not seen in over 30 years. It's actually a justification for a well armed populace.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #147 on: June 06, 2022, 12:55:06 PM »
I'll entertain your hypothetical. Let's say a SWAT team shows up at your door for some reason, Crunch. Are you entitled to kill them? Does your attempt to kill them then entitle them to try to kill you? Do you recognize that a SWAT team is legitimately empowered to demand your compliance and arrest, and then threaten you with violence if you refuse to comply? Or is there no scenario in which demanding your compliance should not be met by the expectation of unrestricted violence on your part?

(It's also worth noting that violent crime is not in fact anywhere near historic highs, and especially not correlated with cities that have chosen to reduce police funding. It turns out that the police actually do very, very little to proactively prevent violent crime.)

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #148 on: June 06, 2022, 01:02:48 PM »
Quote
...
 And we'll see the death totals in mass shootings continue to go up when people are allowed to drive around with 50 cals and no one can stop them until they start shooting into a crowd.
Yeah, sure. We've all heard that before. Conceal carry, open carry, constitutional carry - it's gonna be a bloodbath. This is an appeal to emotion and can be safely ignored by rational people.

If a 50 cal was as accessible as an AR-15 you don't think we would see increased bloodshed? Sure 99.999% of people aren't going to use it to shoot up a crowd. But 1 person using it in a crowded venue would be devastating. You said you would be as effective with a glock as an AR-15. How about something bigger (50 cal) against a crowd packed together for a concert or exiting a stadium? How long does it take the police to get close enough to stop someone wielding something that high caliber? Is your conceal carry pistol going to do you any good against someone shooting you at 100+ yards? Do you see any limits on a right to bear arms so we can have a safer society?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts and Prayers - Again...
« Reply #149 on: June 06, 2022, 01:05:36 PM »
Apparently, cops also do very little to reactively deal with crime. Despite what  you see on copaganda shows, they're pretty awful at actually solving crimes.

Recent history shows the best weapons to use against a modern military are IEDs, MANPADS, and anti-tank missiles. Should civilians be able to own these?