Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: The Knife, The Handgun, and Humanism

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    The Knife, The Handgun, and Humanism

    "Secular Humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism


    This morning I was sitting, and thinking about my CC/OC experience in Washington state, and my CC/OC experience here in California. I began to think about handgun laws in California, and knife laws in California. I began thinking about a couple of years ago, on a Saturday afternoon, when I shot a man - who was running at us - in the chest, in front of my wife, and children. And then I thought about if I did not have my handgun, and instead, I had a knife at my side.

    These two forms of self-defense can be measured in brutality, as well as applied an ethical value, IMO. Self-defense is a necessary act, but a brutal act none-the-less.

    I think about how much more devastating, and brutal my interaction with our attacker would have been if I were instead wielding a knife, and forced to stab him.

    This is not intended to be a political discourse, but let's face it, we function within, and are under the weight of a highly political structure.

    In-short: I find it ironic that the handgun is rendered a brick here in California. And the alternative, a knife, which can be openly carried, fixed, and used in a self-defense situation.

    These thoughts have caused me to consider, and alter my approach to my bleeding-heart Liberal friends. So, my approach is a work in process. I am going to appeal to their sense of ethics, and leave them, in the discussion, with two options regarding what even they will acknowledge, that self-defense is a human 'right', self-preservation is a necessity - unless you are suicidal or something. But these two options will be offered something like this: If self-defense is your only option, is it more humane, and less brutal to stab your attacker with a knife, or shoot your attacker with a bullet.

    I would liken it to the choice between hanging a person, or stoning them.

    Anyhoo.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 09-17-2011 at 04:37 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  2. #2
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Could just OC a bastard sword (not cursing >.>), that way you could add hacking to the question of either shoot or stab
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    Could just OC a bastard sword (not cursing >.>), that way you could add hacking to the question of either shoot or stab
    I believe it was last year a homeowner used a sword against a burglar, and the neighbors stated they could hear the screams of the man as he was being hacked to death.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    If it is a matter of self defense then any and all means should be used. It is just a matter of how well you are defended. A gun is generally going to be more effective to use and have a greater chance of stopping the threat. A knife is also a means but that also means being closer and having more risk of yourself being harmed by being so close to your attacker. A bastard sword while outside may make a good choice over a knife would be horrible in a house defense situation since you could only thrust and not really swing unless you had a big room or high ceilings. I am all for using whatever means for self defense if you are being attacked to include the kitchen sink (ceramic ones are nice and heavy, steel ones won't shatter).

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    If self-defense is your only option, is it more humane, and less brutal to stab your attacker with a knife, or shoot your attacker with a bullet.
    Any time we are forced to "put down" a dangerous, violent, life-threatening animal, we, as humans, should use the method that is as quick, painless, and sure-to-work as we can employ.

    Since lethal injections or gas are not particularly practical "field tools" for use against a hostile human attacker, the handgun is the most humane instrument we can employ to stop a deadly attacker.

    My theory is that the minute a human crossed the line into willfully perpetrating deadly violence upon another, they have signaled their willful rejection of the "social contract", and therefore are NOT due the same rights, respect, or delicacy of interaction as a rational, reasonable human being. They have, by their own volition reduced themselves to something slightly less than human, an should be approached and dealt with in the same manner as any other intelligent, but non-human violent attacker.

    Would you attempt to reason with a bear or a rabid dog that was leaping for your throat? Would you pepper spray a mountain lion that was lunging toward your child? Would you try to "understand" the social conditioning of a great white shark that was swimming toward your surfboard?

    Why should we treat a deadly, psychopathic attacker any differently just because he is on two legs?
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    It's also ridiculous to legislate that a blade less than 4 inches is legal and greater is illegal. It's based on the idea that you need more than four inches to stab the heart up under the rib cage. If you could see what my FMA instructor could do with a 3.5" blade you'd wish you'd been shot instead.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  7. #7
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    The answer to your quandry lies in the fact that antis see the hangun not as a defensive tool, but as an offensive tool. In reality, it is both. Also, unless you have had extensive training, a pocket knife is a terrible defensive tool, more suited to an offensive role in that stealth is a key strength of a knife-something it likely will not have when used in defense.

    There are too many stories for people to read about where guns are used in an offensive role, and not enough stories in a defensive role. I think this plays a big part in public perception.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  8. #8
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereignAxe View Post
    The answer to your quandry lies in the fact that antis see the hangun not as a defensive tool, but as an offensive tool. In reality, it is both. Also, unless you have had extensive training, a pocket knife is a terrible defensive tool, more suited to an offensive role in that stealth is a key strength of a knife-something it likely will not have when used in defense.

    There are too many stories for people to read about where guns are used in an offensive role, and not enough stories in a defensive role. I think this plays a big part in public perception.
    You know, if you think about it the HG is more of a defensive tool than a knife. (I might be stretching it a little to make this point but here goes

    1. You 'show' your HG to a perp (though not advisable), and 90% of the time, the perps run away. Show your knife and you might get shot;
    2. You can delay using your HG until the last minute, meaning it's better as a defensive weapon. (knife is the same, here);
    3. You can just fire your HG and most of the time the perp will run away (though warning shots are not advisable, they do work);
    4. If people know you have a HG they will not engage. Most perps are not dissuaded by thoughts that their vic might have a knife;
    5. Seeing a HG on your hip (OC) is a deterrent; a knife in the pocket on a clip is not really a deterrent, though if spotted in time it might be.

    When is a HG offensive. Think about that also. How many perps use the HG offensively? Very few. Most brandish. In fact rule out serial killers and spree killers and hostage killers, and most HG use is defensive (for the perp - they get their cash, and prevent the vic from resisting).

    Why the 'anti-s', the legislatures and police can't realize this is puzzling. Well, not puzzling - in fact it shows they don't think about the issue, they knee-jerk and emo react -without- thinking.
    Last edited by Badger Johnson; 09-18-2011 at 10:10 PM.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  9. #9
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    You know, if you think about it the HG is more of a defensive tool than a knife. (I might be stretching it a little to make this point but here goes

    1. You 'show' your HG to a perp (though not advisable), and 90% of the time, the perps run away. Show your knife and you might get shot;
    2. You can delay using your HG until the last minute, meaning it's better as a defensive weapon. (knife is the same, here);
    3. You can just fire your HG and most of the time the perp will run away (though warning shots are not advisable, they do work);
    4. If people know you have a HG they will not engage. Most perps are not dissuaded by thoughts that their vic might have a knife;
    5. Seeing a HG on your hip (OC) is a deterrent; a knife in the pocket on a clip is not really a deterrent, though if spotted in time it might be.

    When is a HG offensive. Think about that also. How many perps use the HG offensively? Very few. Most brandish. In fact rule out serial killers and spree killers and hostage killers, and most HG use is defensive (for the perp - they get their cash, and prevent the vic from resisting).

    Why the 'anti-s', the legislatures and police can't realize this is puzzling. Well, not puzzling - in fact it shows they don't think about the issue, they knee-jerk and emo react -without- thinking.
    Learned this little factoid years back. It still holds true.

    A man with a knife that is threatening to use it to hurt/kill someone is much more likely to do so than someone with a firearm that is threatening to use it to hurt/kill someone.

    Both are dangerous, but if close enough, the man with the knife if more dangerous.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Yes that makes sense.

    In our FMA class, early 90s, or late 80s, one thing that was being circulated via the 'Net was the horrific photos of actual knife wounds. Though 'experienced' in knife combat training, few people realize the effects of being cut with a really sharp blade, even those doing blade training.

    So part of the reason a person might be more willing to use a knife than a HG at those closer ranges is the knife wielder may be aware they can kill but unaware of just how brutal and horrific it was to slice someone. That doesn't fully explain your theory, except that a gun user knows if he shoots someone dies so there may be some reluctance to even take that last step.

    Thanks for the comment.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Uber_Olafsun View Post
    If it is a matter of self defense then any and all means should be used. It is just a matter of how well you are defended.
    Effective defense is somewhat a matter of time and distance. The sooner and more distant you can accurately identify and counter your threat, the more effective your defense.

    A gun is generally going to be more effective to use and have a greater chance of stopping the threat. A knife is also a means but that also means being closer and having more risk of yourself being harmed by being so close to your attacker. A bastard sword while outside may make a good choice over a knife would be horrible in a house defense situation since you could only thrust and not really swing unless you had a big room or high ceilings. I am all for using whatever means for self defense if you are being attacked to include the kitchen sink (ceramic ones are nice and heavy, steel ones won't shatter).
    Good old-fashioned honest, law-abiding citizens need to drop the idea that only weapons are weapons and start coming up with close-quarters alternatives, such as bookcases, fish tanks, ash trays, and table chairs.

    Whatever works, and always be prepared to use whatever means are available!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Sorry you were put into a position where you had to make that choice, but you made the right choice.

    If you're going to "appeal to the ethics" of people who oppose gun ownership, you might begin by performing dentistry on a chicken.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  13. #13
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Good old-fashioned honest, law-abiding citizens need to drop the idea that only weapons are weapons and start coming up with close-quarters alternatives, such as bookcases, fish tanks, ash trays, and table chairs.

    Whatever works, and always be prepared to use whatever means are available!
    To wit:

    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    "I was enjoying my day thinking about my favorite, coffee drink (forgot the name of it) I was going to get going to the library with the family and then I was sitting in jail thinking I just killed someone"
    Might be paraphrasing a bit Sarah, but when you told me that at one of the meets, it has stuck with me, and struck a chord with me illustrating very well how things can change very quickly and the need to be armed. There are things that have happened in my past that made me relate to your words. So I hope you don't mind me sharing that.

    I am glad it turned out well for you and your family.

    On topic I would much rather be shot then sliced or stabbed with a knife. In movies if they want something to be more scary the weapon of choice is the knife, and there is a reason for that.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 09-19-2011 at 08:44 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    A knife isn't really a defensive weapon, though you may need to use it as such. It is primarily an offensive weapon by design.

    A firearm is far superior as a defensive tool, and indeed you could say it reduces violence, as many would be attackers surrender or flee upon defensive presentation of it.

    Laws attempting to force peaceable citizens to use any particular tool for their self defence needs are likely lacking in utility. I would even say they lack moral authority.

    I hope someday we can omit all the laws and regulation that are dubious in utility and lacking in moral and legal authority.

    We can all dream right?

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    Yes that makes sense.

    In our FMA class, early 90s, or late 80s, one thing that was being circulated via the 'Net was the horrific photos of actual knife wounds. Though 'experienced' in knife combat training, few people realize the effects of being cut with a really sharp blade, even those doing blade training.

    So part of the reason a person might be more willing to use a knife than a HG at those closer ranges is the knife wielder may be aware they can kill but unaware of just how brutal and horrific it was to slice someone. That doesn't fully explain your theory, except that a gun user knows if he shoots someone dies so there may be some reluctance to even take that last step.

    Thanks for the comment.
    My childhood doctor, who was also the county coroner stated he would much rather be sliced than stabbed. With a slice he thought it more easy to repair wounds and see the damage. Whereas stab wounds were more difficult to repair and see, as in perforated bowels and major organs like heart and liver. Of course if you slice a major artery you bleed out fast and there is not time to repair anything.

    I would think a gunshot wound would be similar but worse than a stab wound as both are penetrating.
    Last edited by Venator; 09-19-2011 at 11:02 AM.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    When shooting to incapacitate (stop the threat) you are specifically aiming for shots that will do major damage to vital systems of the body, so yes these can be and are often horrific wounds in terms of their effect on the body.

    Unfortunately for the aggressor, the wounds that are sustained by someone's self defence are the responsibility of the aggressor.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    When an anti states that my HG was designed to kill, I counter that my HG was designed to defend as it can perform that function quite well without even being fired and that if my HG was designed to kill, and it never has, perhaps it is a bad design.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Having family-oriented ties to a significant portion of the lesbian and gay community in Sacramento, I can tell you that in said culture, liberalism is the political stance of choice. Unlike the Christian oriented conservative movements, the liberal left was far more receptive to taking up the cause. One of the truly few noble and pure pursuits of the left, and one of the few I have ever agreed wholly with.

    As part of the political party many homosexuals, from my extensive observation within the community, have taken to the rest of the parties views as not just part of their day-to-day support of said party, but by conversing with their friends.

    This is where the conservative republicans have gotten our national heritage completely wrong. This nation is not Christian. This nation pursues individual equality for all, regardless of creed, color, or sexual orientation. It has not always been so, but then again, we also viewed those of African descent as 1/3 of a white (Anglic) person.

    This is why the right will not get, ever, a majority of homosexual votes. Religious doctrine instructs them to interject Christian morals and values as taught within their religion, into politics. This in a nation that has a 1st Amendment enumeration recognizing the prohibition of religion driven laws as part of its very first amendment.

    If the right can ever cross that hurdle, you would find many homosexuals agreeing perhaps with a lot of the rights political motives.

    I'll let you guys know when that happens as I will have a new place to store my perishable, frozen goods. Hell.



    It is absolutely true that being raised in California does in fact slowly indoctrinate you into the liberal way of thinking. I escaped this train of thought when I visited the world outside of California, and measured it against my upbringing. My father was very active in taking us shooting. I know that around age 6 he began taking us out regularly. By "us", I am talking about myself, and my two younger sisters. We developed an understanding that guns weren't evil, but merely just a tool akin to a fork or various other eating utensils.

    It dawned on us very early that what he had proven to us at a very young age was that if you didn't need to eat (shoot), you didn't need to mess with the fork (gun). Just leave it be.

    For the record, my father stored his guns at the bottom of his closet, no locks, leaning against the wall. Probably 6-7 of them at one point. Ammo was always readily handy nearby, on the shelf. In fact, the only gun that ever had a lock on it was a rather expensive Benelli 12 Gauge that my dad treasured.

    At 32, I am still desperately waiting to be proven wrong, and have a firearm jump up and kill me and my siblings. Yet, in the aforementioned community, guns were such a taboo topic that if you even mentioned the word, flowery, limp-wristed guffaws would shortly follow (No disrespect, just sayin, some of you guys are pretty feminine heh), and you would have an extremely brief conversation about how deadly and dangerous they were, and how just having one would cause you, your uncle, your cousins, your nephews, and your pets to be murdered post-haste.

    Change comes from within, and it is in these evolving dangerous times that organizations like the Pink Pistols perhaps, could do the most for their communities.

    I also think that the pervading Christian members of this community could do the movement an enormous favor by including as many polite, friendly, open carrying homosexuals as possible into the movement, without leveraging their religious beliefs to chase them away or shun them.

    I know this is where I am internally scoffed by many members for not understanding the "power of their faith", or the "importance of God in all matters". That's ok though, because this is where I internally scoff the ignorance of espousing equality, so long as we are talking about "Christians", and not homosexuals.


    We all have our belief structures, and we should all be allowed to exercise our faith as we see fit. However, enacting laws under color of religion (Like that?) is just as acceptable as being stopped by Officer Harless as a law abiding, armed citizen.


    One must fully come to terms with the word "Equality", and not divide it into subsets. Once you can do that, you can move on to the sovereignty of the individual, and in relation, said individuals inalienable right to self defense from all threats.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  20. #20
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    I think you guys missed my point. My point wasn't how much a gun or a knife are used with effect in an illegal attack, but which role they are designed for.

    This guy gets it:

    Quote Originally Posted by ComradeV View Post
    A knife isn't really a defensive weapon, though you may need to use it as such. It is primarily an offensive weapon by design.

    A firearm is far superior as a defensive tool, and indeed you could say it reduces violence, as many would be attackers surrender or flee upon defensive presentation of it.

    Laws attempting to force peaceable citizens to use any particular tool for their self defence needs are likely lacking in utility. I would even say they lack moral authority.

    I hope someday we can omit all the laws and regulation that are dubious in utility and lacking in moral and legal authority.

    We can all dream right?
    BY DESIGN, a knife is a terrible defense weapon. The only way to use it is to get up close to your attacker, which isn't something you want to do unless you have to. These attribute make it particularly effective as an offensive weapon provided the attacker has the element of surprise. In a self-defense situation, the attacker almost always has the element of surprise, which is what makes the knife a poor defensive weapon.

    By design, a gun is as effective at defense as it is for offense. The problem is that antis don't see it that way, and center only on the offensive aspects of its use.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    [snip]One must fully come to terms with the word "Equality", and not divide it into subsets. Once you can do that, you can move on to the sovereignty of the individual, and in relation, said individuals inalienable right to self defense from all threats.
    So we have what? 2 or 3 members of the gay community here now? As a side note, I was at first confused by Beretta92FSLady's post and I put two and two together after reading yours. I'm a little slow this Monday. You're right, of course, we need more people that normally fall on the left to join us in realizing self defense and the 2A is a non-partisan issue. I think that the single biggest barrier to that, as you eluded to, is the religious or moral fabric of many in the community that tend to openly discourage/berate a personal preference and individual choice. Luckily, there isn't too much of that around here.

    The left preaches "tolerance" which I think is pretty weak. Why? Because individual liberty shouldn't be merely "tolerated". I'm more inline with the "what-evah" train of thought. As long as it isn't hurting me I don't give a flying you-know-what. On the other hand, people that are against personal liberty of any strain within the confines of the rights of others are hurting me and I'm intolerant of them.

    Oh yeah, and to stay on topic: I agree, for self defense firearms > knives.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    So, if the conservative right were to magically accept homesexuals and the gay agenda, the liberal left would magically be busting down the NRA doors to join and be voting enmass for constitutional carry in every state. Is there room in your storage facility for some of my stuff?...
    Nobody said that.

    The insinuation is that regardless of party affiliation, people will come around to the "right side" of things. Regardless sexual orientation, race, color, or favorite breakfast.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    So, if the conservative right were to magically accept homesexuals and the gay agenda
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    I love milk

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post

    .......This nation pursues individual equality for all, regardless of creed, color, or sexual orientation. It has not always been so, but then again, we also viewed those of African descent as 1/3 of a white (Anglic) person.........
    uhhhhh... we did? Care to elaborate on that? Where did you get that number? Who is "we"?

    If you are referring to the "three-fifths compromise" of The Constitution For The United States, then you should know that it was actually an anti-slavery measure. It did not apply to all people of African descent, it applied to slaves of any descent. The "slave states" wanted each slave to count as one person in the census. The "anti-slave-states" did not want them to count at all.

    "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

    So, "free persons" counted as 1, indentured servants counted as 1, most "Indians" did not count at all, and slaves counted as three-fifths.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •