The Knife, The Handgun, and Humanism

Brass Magnet · Sep 19, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
[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.

slowfiveoh · Sep 19, 2011

OC for ME said:
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.

Tawnos · Sep 19, 2011

OC for ME said:
So, if the conservative right were to magically accept homesexuals and the gay agenda

ComradeV · Sep 21, 2011

I love milk

END_THE_FED · Sep 21, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
.......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.

since9 · Sep 22, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
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.

Based on ER statistics, the likelihood of living after being stabbed once with a knife is far greater than after being shot once with a gun. Thus, you're less likely to deprive your attacker of their right to life (part of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness clause) by stabbing them than by shooting them.

However, the likelihood of slowing them down or stopping them by stabbing is far less than if you shoot them. Thus, you're forfeiting a percentage of your right to life by choosing to use a knife than a gun.

It would be far better if we could develop a gun that shot an incapacitating electric charge, and WALLA! we've already done so. They're called tazers. Unfortunately, because they're far less deadly or likely to result in permanent injury, they're often abused, so states have often regulated tazers more strictly than they have firearms.

Besides, tazers don't keep the bad guy down. They require follow-up with cuffs and usually some sort of further take-down maneuver.

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

I have no idea as to why we don't simply use nitrous oxide instead of lethal injection. After they're asleep, simply increase the nitrous oxide to 100% until they stop breathing. Replacing the O2 in a room with 100% nitrogen has a similar effect, and after the person's heart stops beating, just leave them there for a couple of hours just to be sure.

Back to self-defense...

Knives must be used at close range. Firearms can be used at a distance, before your attacker can use a knife on you. I vote for firearms.

Far more effective at fighting off claw-wielding wildlife, too.

since9 · Sep 24, 2011

OC for ME said:
I find it absurd that a group of our citizens fighting tooth and nail for long deprived equal treatment under the law are largely for the deprivation of enumerated rights for all citizens. So, I ask again, if the conservative right were to magically accept homosexuals and the gay agenda, the liberal left would magically be busting down the NRA doors to join and be voting en-mass for constitutional carry in every state. I find it highly unlikely, no, virtually impossible, that the LGBT community and the remainder of the liberal left will agree perhaps with a lot of the rights political motives, ever, it's just not in their nature to do so. A liberal, is a liberal first and foremost.

The liberal left largely believes that the constitution is a "living-breathing document", written long ago by dead, white, racist slave-owners, who could never foresee the changes that have taken place in today's society. How could they foresee the evolution of our society, their Christian morals clouded their judgment. The liberal left has a vision to bring the constitution in line with the liberal left’s desired and declared social reality, the constitution notwithstanding.

I disagree with that view. I will do my level best to counter and defeat the liberal left and their agenda. The constitution is fine just as it was written, long ago, by those dead, white, racist slave-owners. There is no compromise, in my view, with the liberal left; only the relegation of liberalism to the ash heap of history will save this country.

A true unfettered right to bear arms by all citizens, regardless of "sexual orientation, race, color, or favorite breakfast", just as those dead, white, racist slave-owners intended, will ensure that the constitution remains the foundation upon which this country was built. In my view, the cornerstone of that foundation is the 2A. Nothing strikes fear in the hearts of the liberal left more than the right of the citizenry to defend their life, liberty, and property from a tyrannical government.

Very well written, OC for ME, and I largely agree with you, and you're wise to use the term "largely" in your second paragraph. I have friends who are very liberal, more than one of whom is in the LGBT community, who nevertheless believe our Constitution is fine the way it is. Obviously the Founders believed they weren't perfect and thus incorporated the amendment process as a means of correcting an oversight, improving on their original, and providing for unforeseen changes in society.

Unfortunately, the term "living Constitution" evolved as a means of liberally interpreting our Constitution to mean something supporting a "modern" idea, even if doing so violates the original intent. It's to that extent that I object, primarily as our Founding Fathers saw fit not only to include a means upgrading our Constitution, but to limit it's upgrade to the amendment process. The "living Constitution" concept allows "judges to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation," something quite contrary, not to mention above and beyond, without authorization, from the intended means of upgrade written into the Constitution by the Founders.

In summary, I largely agree with your view, OC for ME. Where we disagree is that I believe our Constitution is indeed primed to change with the times, but only in the manner proscribed by our Founders through the amendment process.

I think we both agree that liberal interpretations aka twisting its meaning to serve whatever purpose a judge feels is appropriate, is contrary to the Founders intent and the design inherent in the Constitution itself.

Daylen · Sep 25, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
...
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.

hehe thats kinda funny in a morbid sort of way. A pistol can certainly be easier on its wielder's mind and possibly a less horrific way of dying than a knife. It takes a far hardier heart for a person to kill something with a knife than a gun. While the gun is quick to damage and only takes the pull of a trigger in the right direction a knife takes thought and effort to use in such a way that a creature will bleed until dead; and usually be in pain and terror the entire time.

I expect you will find such friends intolerant of any means or intention of self defense. Perhaps you will do better than I have with people of such mentality, good luck.

The Knife, The Handgun, and Humanism

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member

slowfiveoh

Regular Member

Tawnos

Regular Member

ComradeV

Campaign Veteran

END_THE_FED

Regular Member

since9

Campaign Veteran

since9

Campaign Veteran

Daylen

Regular Member