Go mess with the Brady Campaign on Facebook!

[Orygunner]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Orygunner wrote:

So, it seems you simply believe it's wrong to sell a sufficiently bad guy a firearm. That seems to be all there is to it, and honestly I respect that belief. You claim you're being logical and that we are the extemists. However, I see no logic in it because you claim any outcome is irrelevant, and you're basing your reasoning only on duty and ethical responsibiilty.Both of which are very relative, subjective, and not concrete concepts to use in a "logical" argument.

Is there logic buried here in your argument that I'm just missing?

...Orygunner...

Well you want something really concrete, I can use your idea of "reasonable cause" and say that, IMO, someone with a violent past gives me "reasonable cause" to believe they're going to have a violent future. I can show you the high rate of felons that commit violent crime again, I can show you the issue of personality disorders from a psychological prospective and how some people simply have innate risks for criminal tendances, but none of that will matter because your mind is made up. You've got this idea that everyone is equal, no matter their history. You think that because someone "paid their debt to society" (which PT111 addressed the ridiculousness of very well in the other felon's rights thread) they should be free to carry on as normal people.

Trust me, I understand your argument. If it was actually the case that only the people who have paid their debt to the victims, and who have not demostrated repeat violent or criminal tendances, were the ones that got let out of jail - then I would agree with you (because I assume you aren't one of the ones that goes so far as to say they should have guns while IN jail). But, currently, that simply isn't the case. So until the legal system is fixed, I believe that these violent offender should be restricted access to what is currently the most powerful weapon that is widely available.

Because, if you're being honest, a gun is nothing like a loaf of bread, nor is it like a fetilizer bomb, nor is it like a knife. A loaf of bread can't kill anyone. A knife requires physical struggle and can't kill at distance. A bomb takes planning, assembly, and know-how. A gun, however, can be purchased with ammo easily, loaded in <15 seconds, and be taken to kill ten's of people with little to no effort. A gun is NOT a loaf of bread, and it is NOT comparable to any other weapon or "weapon" that is widely available.



If that's not enough logic for you, then have a good read...

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

I think you underestimate me. My mind is never completely made up. I always take the attitude that I may be wrong about something, but it has to be proven to me. So far, you haven't.

I well understand some people may be more predisposed to violence, that there is a certain rate of repeat crimes among felons, etc. Am I correct that a person on trial for a crime cannot have their prior criminal record used as evidence against them, because it cannot be used to reasonably prove they commited THAT crime? I know that just because a cop pulls over someone for a traffic violation and discovers they have prior convictions for drug possession, that does not alone mean there is reasonable cause to search for contraband in their vehicle. He can eye themmore closely and ask for a search, but can't force one under the excuse that a prior record is reasonable cause for it. I can't think of anywhere in our legal or criminal justice system where a prior criminal record proves reasonable cause.

You're correct, I agree guns in jail are a no-no. While incarcerated for their crime, their rights are limited. We also restrict the freedoms of those released from jail while on probation, soI might agree that under probation, there should be some restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms during that time, depending on circumstances.

Guns are extremely unique. There isn't anything else quite like them, or the right to keep and bear them. Parallels are difficult, comparisons to other items or tools are almost always flawed in one way or another. Nothing else is as easy to use to save a life, or take a life. To protect yourself, or inflict harm onto another. To be used to protect (or restore) liberty, or used to oppress and tyrannize. As we must not forget they are dangerous tools easily used for evil, we must also remember they are more often used for what we shouldagree aregood purposes.

I don't think I've seen you factor in any of the good uses of firearms through this entire discussion.

I started reading the link for the Deontology discussion, but don't have a lot of time to study it closely, and am somewhat preoccupied today. I'll study it and discuss later.

...BTW, Chuck Norris could kill someone with a loaf of bread...
...Orygunner...

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

...BTW, Chuck Norris could kill someone with a loaf of bread...
...Orygunner...

LOL I should have seen that coming.



Good point about the relevance of past crimes. I'll have to think about that one.



Would you agree with me that many criminals are currently let out of jail long before they should be? And, if so, how do you address that situation with respect to the topic?

 

[BB62]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

...Would you agree with me that many criminals are currently let out of jail long before they should be? And, if so, how do you address that situation with respect to the topic?

If that is the case, the problem should be addressed at its source - not by restricting the freedoms of others.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

BB62 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

...Would you agree with me that many criminals are currently let out of jail long before they should be? And, if so, how do you address that situation with respect to the topic?

If that is the case, the problem should be addressed at its source - not by restricting the freedoms of others.

Gee, I've only been saying that since the beginning. But it isn't happening, so we need an alternate/temporary solution.

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Orygunner wrote:

...BTW, Chuck Norris could kill someone with a loaf of bread...
...Orygunner...

LOL I should have seen that coming.



Good point about the relevance of past crimes. I'll have to think about that one.



Would you agree with me that many criminals are currently let out of jail long before they should be? And, if so, how do you address that situation with respect to the topic?

I absolutely agree that many criminals are let out of jail before they should be. Repeat offenders with an obvious history of violent crime should not be released until they are rehabilitated. While previous crimes cannot be fairly used as a factor in determining guilt for a suspected crime or even reasonable suspicion of committing future crimes, I believe criminal history should be a much stronger factor in sentencing decisions.

However, I think our current system is just a band-aid on a hemmorage - we're only poorly treating the symptom instead of studying and understanding the cause. The problem is not that criminals aren't being held in jail long enough, the problem is that there are too many criminals!

I recently read the book Starship Troopers by Roberty Heinlein. The book was a thousand times better than the movie, BTW. Taking place in the future (of course), they were discussing in a high school classroom how dangerous the 20th century was, that people were afraid to walk in cities and parks after dark because of roving bands of teenagers that would rape, beat, and kill people just for fun. The determined cause was that the definition of cruel and unusual punishment had been diminished to the point where there was no real reason NOT to commit crimes. Even spanking children was discouraged, resulting in children out of control, with no respect for parents or other authority. If caught, no criminal (not even children) ever had any real punishment, no reason not to do it again. Incarceration for a short time, then back on the street with new skills learned behind bars. Once they went to a system of punishment of public floggings for criminal behavior, excruciating physical pain was a great motivation to not commit crimes and criminal activity in society dwindled down to almost nonexistent.

We have too many criminals because of multiple reasons, but I think the strongest reason is that there isn't much motivation for them NOT to engage in criminal behavior. We've taken corporal punishment (paddling) out of the public schools, We've got shows like Nanny 911 that teach discipline without physical punishment, which I believe may work on the surface, but is ultimately going to fail as these little monsters get older and they realize how to work the system and how little punishment they're really getting. Self-perpetuating poverty and our current welfare system has created a generation of couch potatoes that's breeding litters of more couch potatoes because it makes their government assistant checks bigger.

Where I live in Lane County, Oregon, our County Jail is so overcrowded, that most people arrested are 'Matrixed" out within hours based on a formula of past crimes and current charges to determine the people who are the least threat to the public. One of our local news stations did a recent report on it, where a female reporter took on the record of a real criminal with a history of drug possession, assault and theft. They "booked" her for a DUII, resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. She was out of jail and back on the street in about 6 hours.

Do you agree that a major reason we have too many criminals is because there isn't enough deterrant in the current criminal justice system?

...Orygunner...

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

Do you agree that a major reason we have too many criminals is because there isn't enough deterrant in the current criminal justice system?

...Orygunner...

I dunno, man. You're going way off on a totally different topic. Given my experience in psychology, I know that it's actually been proven that physical punishment increases violent behavior (do unto othersas others havedone unto you), and I also know that I (and probably you as well) really aren't qualified to even begin to discuss those matters. And again we're treading heavily into the territory of what's ethical and what's not, and how far the power of the state extends to punish people. You have to remember, no justice system is 100% and innocent people WILL be convicted. So how far do you really want to go on the punishment of innocent people? The same argument you used about infringing on the rights of innocent people purchasing guns can also be used here. How far do you want to go in persecuting criminals when you know innocent people will inevitably be included in that group?

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

BB62 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

...Would you agree with me that many criminals are currently let out of jail long before they should be? And, if so, how do you address that situation with respect to the topic?

If that is the case, the problem should be addressed at its source - not by restricting the freedoms of others.

Gee, I've only been saying that since the beginning. But it isn't happening, so we need an alternate/temporary solution.

but you see, that's the problem...

while you see "resonable" restrictions as a "temporary" solution, how exactly would you define "temporary"?

The laws forbidding those convicted of a felony from ownig guns has been on the books since 1968... that doesn't seem too temporary to me.

In the meantime, people suffer. let's use an example. let's say you have this man, we'll call him "my pappaw" just for arguments sake...

lets say for instance that "my pappaw" was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to what was either moonshining or murder charges back in the late 50's/ early 60's. due to the GCA of 1968, he was unable to buy guns after that time.

now lets say "my pappaw" 20 years later, had long since settled down, raised a family, gave his life to Christ, and took upon himself the burden of raising one of his grand children. now do you think it's fair that because of something he did twenty years prior ( or even 5 years prior, which is the time we'll say he raised a son we'll call "my dad") that the man has no way to defend himself, unless he goes out and illegally purchases a gun?

when you get a disease, you cure it by attacking the source, not the symptoms.
when you get crime, you cure it by attacking the criminals, and not the tools.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

Do you agree that a major reason we have too many criminals is because there isn't enough deterrant in the current criminal justice system?

Emphatically "no". Not in the slightest.

Prohibition has a lot to do with it. If anything, this could be described as "too much 'deterrent'" in the justice system.

You know, in the 18th century people experimented with prisons quite a bit. In Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, he makes it clear that the purpose of prison was to be a place where remedial labor could be done without the dehumanizing, humiliating public spectacle. Simply put, prison was a way to reform those who were not deemed worthy of being executed. This was in contrast to the prisons extant in Europe and other monarchies at the time, which were essentially a dump for political and other undesirables, with no reform intended, much as a modern prison is. Furthermore, this was to be done because it had been showed to work. Reform was found to be possible, under the right circumstances.

In short, there was no "deterrence" outside of death for murderous or treasonous felonies. Criminals were either killed, or reformed. A reformed person doesn't need "deterrence".

I believe that those who possessed such a liberal attitude towards crime and punishment had an understanding of sociology lost since the development of the field as a modern science. They understood that, with the exception of sociopaths, the natural desire of every man is to integrate into society. Criminals are thus usually a failure of that integration, rather than inherently evil, inferior beings.

This applies very strongly to today. Many criminals come from poor neighborhoods. Are they criminals because they are poor? No. They are criminals because their entire social class are treated as second-class citizens (whites smoke just as much pot as blacks, but looking at the racial makeup of nonviolent prison offenders you wouldn't believe this to be true), so said social class begins to distrust police authority, a process with culminates in the complete loss of respect for the current state of government.

(You can imagine how this works. Joe Potsmoker is put in jail for possession, maybe small-quantity sale, of marijuana. Mom (rightly) believes the state has aggressed against her family. Mom therefore never teaches to Joe's younger brothers that the police are their friend. Thus, in a single generation, respect for government and overt societal order is lost.)

Such criminals do not engage in antisocial behavior because they are all (or even mostly) sociopaths, they do so because their conditions lead to a lack of integration with the societal mainstream. (Poverty is, of course, a symptom of this incomplete integration.) If you don't belong in society, where is the motivation to contribute? Conversely, if you have a mutually beneficial place in society, where is the motivation to turn to crime?

This is the function of the Non-aggression principle. By minimizing aggression from any source, you minimize these anti-socializing tendencies, and you maximize the willingness of people to form complex societal bonds across social subgroups. For example, every time the government aggresses against a person who has committed no malum in se offense, like mere possession of a harmless substance, the government has created a person who no longer feels like an equal, fairly-treated member of society. The aggregate effect is an increase in antisocial behavior, manifest mostly as crime.

Edit: With all that said, I agree that in the current state of affairs it is a mistake to parole people like Lovelle Mixon. If you aren't even going to attempt to reform, you shouldn't release violent people into society just because they have "served" an arbitrary amount of non-reformatory time.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Orygunner wrote:

Do you agree that a major reason we have too many criminals is because there isn't enough deterrant in the current criminal justice system?

...Orygunner...

 

I dunno, man.  You're going way off on a totally different topic.  Given my experience in psychology, I know that it's actually been proven that physical punishment increases violent behavior (do unto others as others have done unto you), and I also know that I (and probably you as well) really aren't qualified to even begin to discuss those matters.  And again we're treading heavily into the territory of what's ethical and what's not, and how far the power of the state extends to punish people.  You have to remember, no justice system is 100% and innocent people WILL be convicted.  So how far do you really want to go on the punishment of innocent people?  The same argument you used about infringing on the rights of innocent people purchasing guns can also be used here.  How far do you want to go in persecuting criminals when you know innocent people will inevitably be included in that group?

Excellent points. These are reason why I advocate liberal justice along with citizens well-armed to defend themselves. These two things should do the most to reduce crime without imprisoning the innocent. That's how a free society was originally envisioned to operate. I believe the lack of follow-through on that vision is responsible for what appears to some to be the failure of freedom today.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

now lets say "my pappaw" 20 years later, had long since settled down, raised a family, gave his life to Christ, and took upon himself the burden of raising one of his grand children. now do you think it's fair that because of something he did twenty years prior ( or even 5 years prior, which is the time we'll say he raised a son we'll call "my dad") that the man has no way to defend himself, unless he goes out and illegally purchases a gun?

I just said the system needs to be fixed, what part of that didn't you understand?

Forevery one sided example you give me, I'll give you ten that support my point of view. In reality, both exist because this isn't a white/black issue. You're denying that the one in support of yourview exist. I'm acknowledging that the ones in support of your views exist and telling you straight upthat I don't care.

 

[Cobbersmom]

imported post

Thanks to whoever posted the Brady site link on Facebook. I became a 'fan', per se, and left my own comment on being responsible for protecting myself. I'm sure it will get deleted quickly but it was fun anyway.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Cobbersmom wrote:

Thanks to whoever posted the Brady site link on Facebook. I became a 'fan', per se, and left my own comment on being responsible for protecting myself. I'm sure it will get deleted quickly but it was fun anyway.

Wow, this topic is about the Brady Facebook group? ......

:lol:

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

I just said the system needs to be fixed, what part of that didn't you understand?

Forevery one sided example you give me, I'll give you ten that support my point of view. In reality, both exist because this isn't a white/black issue. You're denying that the one in support of yourview exist. I'm acknowledging that the ones in support of your views exist and telling you straight upthat I don't care.

I recognized the fact that you agree that the system needs to be fixed, however I was trying to show you that you are attempting to fix the wrong part of the system.

so you don't care about folks whose 2A rights have been taken due to "felony" charges, and that's fine and good until you yourself become a felon. no, it can't happen... right?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

unreconstructed1 wrote:

I recognized the fact that you agree that the system needs to be fixed, however I was trying to show you that you are attempting to fix the wrong part of the system.

so you don't care about folks whose 2A rights have been taken due to "felony" charges, and that's fine and good until you yourself become a felon. no, it can't happen... right?

I just said that that was the part of the system that needs to be fixed. Stop calling people that accidently carried into a school parking lot "dangerous felons" and we won't have to worry about the wrong people having rights taken away.

 

[GWbiker]

imported post

It appears the Pro-Gun crowd has invaded and taken over the Brady Campaign Facebook site. Here's to interesting reading before it's all deleted:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brady-Campaign-to-Prevent-Gun-Violence/6236054211

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

It appears the Pro-Gun crowd has invaded and taken over the Brady Campaign Facebook site. Here's to interesting reading before it's all deleted:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brady-Campaign-to-Prevent-Gun-Violence/6236054211

Not sure what you're refering to, but I did lol @ this:

Sarah Kingston

Last month a friend of mine was shot, if he had had a gun to defend himself, other people could have gotten hurt too. It’s a never ending cycle of violence in this country, when will it ever stop?

And this...

Normand Pelissier

I'm in favor of overturning the Second Amendment if that's the reason we can't get rid of unnecessary guns in this country. All we ever hear from the NRA and their right-wing followers is SECOND AMENDMENT. I'll gladly give up my second amendment rights if that's going to keep me (and millions of others) from being killed by a firearm.

And this....

Edward Boyno

I simply do not understand the desire to own and/or shoot a gun

Oh and this one is classic...


Jim Starowicz at 7:13pm May 14

Hey Jared ""The last thing Pro-Gun advocates want is any death and violence."", Really, than how come many gun group owners are shooting people, and why are a number of gunshop owners, and gun owners as middlemen, in the Southwest packing up guns an ammo and shipping, via black market, them to the drug war in Mexico, one of which is on trial in Arizona, found with guns all boxed and ready to go!!

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Bwaaaahahaha that last one really got me going! :lol:

 

[GWbiker]

imported post

It was the Ar15.com crowd that took over Brady Campaign Facebood earlier today and posted pro 2nd amendment quotes by George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, JFK and dozens of other great Americans.

It's all been deleted.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

It was the Ar15.com crowd that took over Brady Campaign Facebood earlier today and posted pro 2nd amendment quotes by George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, JFK and dozens of other great Americans.

It's all been deleted.

Of course. Did you see the guy with the son that's over in Iraq? He really called them on their stupidity, and they couldn't even say anything to refute him. That one was still up last I saw. They just can't handle reality.

That's an excellent idea on confronting them with founding father quotes.