Domestic gun grab. Real threat or BS?

[Primus]

I really recommend not bothering to engage the troll.

Please refrain from the "troll" stuff. No one is trolling. We were/are talking like adults about some differences in opinion we may or may not have. It's easy to resort to name calling (it's happened to me twice now in this thread, first a "pansy" and now a "troll"). I was under the impression this forum is monitored and there are rules in place to keep guys from "bashing individuals". You can ignore anything I say, just please don't jump into a conversation between two other individuals and start throwing names around. Thank you, I appreciate it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Please refrain from the "troll" stuff. No one is trolling. We were/are talking like adults about some differences in opinion we may or may not have. It's easy to resort to name calling (it's happened to me twice now in this thread, first a "pansy" and now a "troll"). I was under the impression this forum is monitored and there are rules in place to keep guys from "bashing individuals". You can ignore anything I say, just please don't jump into a conversation between two other individuals and start throwing names around. Thank you, I appreciate it.

Keep talking like that I might retract my agenda statement.....

 

[davidmcbeth]

What query? Your last query was #68 when you asked if I was a hermit? lol

Please inquire again, dude. And I'll gladly answer.

Hey, I'm not the Shell Questionnaire Man !

 

[eye95]

Please refrain from the "troll" stuff. No one is trolling. We were/are talking like adults about some differences in opinion we may or may not have. It's easy to resort to name calling (it's happened to me twice now in this thread, first a "pansy" and now a "troll"). I was under the impression this forum is monitored and there are rules in place to keep guys from "bashing individuals". You can ignore anything I say, just please don't jump into a conversation between two other individuals and start throwing names around. Thank you, I appreciate it.

Feel free to engage the troll. I will not mention it to you further. I have no regret in having mentioned it already (nor in mentioning it to others in the future), as others have read those posts to you, and that will open many eyes as to what this poster is doing.

Have a good day.

 

[MattinWA]

What threat of violence? Am I missing something?

The absolute WORST thing anyone can do is arrest you. I'll respond for you "well getting arrested I might get shot, etc.".
Not if you didn't resist.

Your naivety is cute.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Really? C'mon. No wonder your paranoid and threatened when someone says "license and registration". How can a EVASIVE argument be malicious?? Maliciousness implies due harm or duress towards you. Are you really that upset by my opinions? (opinions operating word).

No I'm saying absence an overt act of threat is a lack of threat of violence. When you order coffee are you afraid that the lady will throw it in your face? If you get gas are you afraid the attendant will light you on fire? No. There are no overt act.

So as we mentioned many encounters, barring an open and obvious threat of violence such as GRABBING their gun or drawing it, or flagging you with a rifle, or stating "I will shoot you", there is no over "threat of violence".

Listen my 1 year old kid can walk (kind of) up to me at ANY time and bite me in the ankle. Would you say I live under a threat of violence from him? I hope not....

It's just that sliding scale of what freaks you out. I'm no so paranoid that I assume everyone everywhere will try to kill me or oppress me, regardless if they wear a uniform or not.

Again, each to his own.

Sorry, this doesn't work. Any time that you are detained by police, or issued a citation, or charged a fine for any reason, or are in any other way legally obligated to perform any action, such as paying taxes, it is at the threat of violence. Force will be used against you for non-compliance, always. It is spelled out in law, and supported by countless experience, that you do not have a choice, and that non-compliance will result in escalation of force used against you to bring you to compliance. You think that when a police officer pulls up behind you and flips on his lights, he isn't using force against you? Because he is. The lights are an indication that you are not free to physically continue on your journey. You are being detained and are not free to leave. No gun draw necessary. If you ever claimed in court that you didn't know you weren't free to leave, because the officer didn't draw his weapon, you'd be convicted without question. Any time that you are legally bound, and you don't comply, the officials will use physical force to reconcile your physical detention with your legal one. If you don't think so, I think you need to put down the weed and take a walk in the real world. See what you see.

Arrest is violence. If I walk up to you and place you in handcuffs, I will be charged and convicted of what is considered a "violent crime." Would you disagree?

Here is what it boils down to. When you are given instruction, and non-compliance with that instruction will result in physical force being employed against you, then you are given that instruction with the threat of that physical force being employed against you. The employment of physical force is violence (at least when the instruction lacks moral justification).

I think it's all been said already. I didn't catch up on the thread before replying.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I think it's all been said already.

+1

He already knew it.

For his blatantly untenable commentary against it, he is to be disregarded as intellectually dishonest.

 

[Primus]

Sorry, this doesn't work. Any time that you are detained by police, or issued a citation, or charged a fine for any reason, or are in any other way legally obligated to perform any action, such as paying taxes, it is at the threat of violence. Force will be used against you for non-compliance, always. It is spelled out in law, and supported by countless experience, that you do not have a choice, and that non-compliance will result in escalation of force used against you to bring you to compliance. You think that when a police officer pulls up behind you and flips on his lights, he isn't using force against you? Because he is. The lights are an indication that you are not free to physically continue on your journey. You are being detained and are not free to leave. No gun draw necessary. If you ever claimed in court that you didn't know you weren't free to leave, because the officer didn't draw his weapon, you'd be convicted without question. Any time that you are legally bound, and you don't comply, the officials will use physical force to reconcile your physical detention with your legal one. If you don't think so, I think you need to put down the weed and take a walk in the real world. See what you see.

Arrest is violence. If I walk up to you and place you in handcuffs, I will be charged and convicted of what is considered a "violent crime." Would you disagree?

Here is what it boils down to. When you are given instruction, and non-compliance with that instruction will result in physical force being employed against you, then you are given that instruction with the threat of that physical force being employed against you. The employment of physical force is violence (at least when the instruction lacks moral justification).

I think it's all been said already. I didn't catch up on the thread before replying.

Cite bold.

This has been addressed previously in this thread. You are mixing Force and Violence. Two separate and distinct things. It may be your opinion that any force applied to you is violent, but it's not a fact.

You explained my stance for me, but you kept using the words wrong. When you don't pay a citation NO ONE ARRESTS YOU. You get a letter in the mail that says your fine will be increased. After that, you get a letter on the mail saying your license will be suspended. Eventually, your license will expire. After your license expires, it will be Non-renewable. Then and only then, if you drive you will be arrested. And the offense is unlicensed operation of a MV, not the tickets. So again... they are forcing you (force) to pay your fine with the threat of more fines and your ability to drive a vehicle restricted. There are NO violent acts in anything I just described.

Also, to hopefully rest my case I've listed the definition of force and violence. Cited from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence


Force: a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life> (2) capitalized —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale <a Force 10 hurricane>
b : moral or mental strength
c : capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the argument>

Violence:

a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage


You can actually see that your close when you say violence and force are the "same". Main difference is that there is no injury or abuse when using "force".

So back to my original statement, people get arrested everyday without any "violence". People comply and are forced into handcuffs and willing go with the police without being injured or abused (before you scream "it's an abuse of my rights!!!! abuse is meant in a PHYSICAL way). And the perceived "threat of violence" derives from the fact that if you resit, which can actually be construes as violence since it may cause injury to involved parties, you are usually met with violence or more force in response. This thread isn't about EOF or UOF so I won't go into detail, but it's the basic premise you will not be treated with violence unless you start the violence first.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP This has been addressed previously in this thread. You are mixing Force and Violence. Two separate and distinct things. It may be your opinion that any force applied to you is violent, but it's not a fact.

Splitting a red herring.

<snicker>

 

[eye95]

I see one person making thoughtful posts and another just driving by. Who do you think is having the greater effect on those reading the thread who do not already have an opinion?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Interestingly enough, I looked up both definitions before hitting the submit reply button. can't type more, on my phone. Ttyl

 

[marshaul]

Primus's "argument" is patently ridiculous.

First of all:

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

Violence is "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

Consider, hypothetically: the government demands your money. You do not wish to give government your money, but government will arrest you and criminally prosecute you if you do not pay. To arrest you, officers will handcuff you and put you into a squad car. If you do not permit them to handcuff you, they will force your arms behind your back and cuff you. If you resist their attempts to force your arms behind your back, officers will increase their use of force concomitantly. Officers will meet and exceed any degree of physical force used by you in resisting their arrest of your person, up to and including using lethal force.

Therefore, government operates by placing us all under the constant threat of violent force, should we refuse to acquiesce to its mandates.

Primus's position is exactly equivalent to arguing "rape isn't violent, because if the victim would only acquiesce, it would be just sex". But rape is violent, even if the victim doesn't physically resist – because the threat of even greater physical harm is present whenever consent is withheld.

I suspect that what Primus intends to be arguing is that it's acceptable for government to use initiatory force and violence – that its whole object is to monopolize legitimate force and place it under the control of the people – to benefit the common good. Although many of us may disagree with this argument, it is at least logically coherent. But instead he is attaching value judgements to the words "violence" and "force" that simply do not apply. "Violence" does not need to be evil or wrong to be "violence"; it is a value-free concept. The same goes with "force".

But to twist and redefine words such that the mere claim (or even fact) of legitimacy renders violent acts suddenly nonviolent, is intellectually dishonest – pure and simple. Maybe government is the best thing since sliced bread, and is rightful and legitimate in all its actions – but it still relies and force and the threat of violence to achieve its ends.

 

[Primus]

Primus's "argument" is patently ridiculous.

First of all:

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


Consider, hypothetically: the government demands your money. You do not wish to give government your money, but government will arrest you and criminally prosecute you if you do not pay. To arrest you, officers will handcuff you and put you into a squad car. If you do not permit them to handcuff you, they will force your arms behind your back and cuff you. If you resist their attempts to force your arms behind your back, officers will increase their use of force concomitantly. Officers will meet and exceed any degree of physical force used by you in resisting their arrest of your person, up to and including using lethal force.

Therefore, government operates by placing us all under the constant threat of violent force, should we refuse to acquiesce to its mandates.

Primus's position is exactly equivalent to arguing "rape isn't violent, because if the victim would only acquiesce, it would be just sex". But rape is violent, even if the victim doesn't physically resist – because the threat of even greater physical harm is present whenever consent is withheld.

I suspect that what Primus intends to be arguing is that it's acceptable for government to use initiatory force and violence – that its whole object is to monopolize legitimate force and place it under the control of the people – to benefit the common good. Although many of us may disagree with this argument, it is at least logically coherent. But instead he is attaching value judgements to the words "violence" and "force" that simply do not apply. "Violence" does not need to be evil or wrong to be "violence"; it is a value-free concept. The same goes with "force".

But to twist and redefine words such that the mere claim (or even fact) of legitimacy renders violent acts suddenly nonviolent, is intellectually dishonest – pure and simple. Maybe government is the best thing since sliced bread, and is rightful and legitimate in all its actions – but it still relies and force and the threat of violence to achieve its ends.

2 important things......

1: did you just refute my dictionary definition with a Wikipedia? lol You know wikipedia is just people writing whatever they want right? I could write one that says violence is wearing purple. In fact, last time I checked wikipedia is actually not allowed in some college classes because of that fact.

2: Forcing sex is Rape.... VIOLENT rape is aggravated rape. So again, your kind of proving my point. You can just use force or coercion and it is "rape" throw in violence, a very separate thing, and you get aggravated rape.


P.S we have plenty of GOOD laws that allow citizens to use legitimate force, it's not monopolized by anyone nor will it ever be. And please cite or define bold.

 

[marshaul]

1: did you just refute my dictionary definition with a Wikipedia? lol You know wikipedia is just people writing whatever they want right? I could write one that says violence is wearing purple. In fact, last time I checked wikipedia is actually not allowed in some college classes because of that fact.

What are you, in high school? In the real world, every source must be considered critically, and Wikipedia is inherently no more nor less valuable than any other source. Any epistemology which automatically and uncritically accords greater merit to "authoritative" sources, or lesser merit to "un-authoritative" sources is lazy, and itself without merit, value, or use.

What you've committed here is essentially a variant of the ad hominem fallacy. Attack the content, not the source.

(Incidentally, if you bothered to check the attribution, that definition is from the WHO, and is as of much inherent merit – little, if any – as any dictionary.)

A dictionary serves no purpose other than to establish common ground; it cannot authoritatively prove or dictate the meaning of any word.

To further prove my case:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence

vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns]
noun
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

While one out of five does suggest value, the top two definitions are value-neutral. This strongly suggests that, absent any context, the word carries no value connotations. Further definitions are irrelevant, as the point is sufficiently made.

Any sort of physical force meets the definitional criteria for "violence".

2: Forcing sex is Rape.... VIOLENT rape is aggravated rape. So again, your kind of proving my point. You can just use force or coercion and it is "rape" throw in violence, a very separate thing, and you get aggravated rape.

Few states have sentence enhancements for "aggravated" rape. And even if they all did, it would remain irrelevant. Consider: "assault" is, by definition, violent. And yet there is also "aggravated assault". How do you explain this?

Anyway, since you love definitions:

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31

Violent crime includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault.

Get real, buddy.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

When I wrote my reply earlier, I honestly couldn't even remember the history of the thread, I was just kind of going off of that one post. I decided to go back and basically read all of your posts, Primus, in a row. Holy ****. What an evolution.

Also, this is kind of off topic, but about Wikipedia... **** dude. Think about it. To help you get started, consider that Wikipedia is not the free-for-all you imply it could be. There are actually quite a few processes in place to control the content and ensure it's correctness and reliability. Try checking a page on which the information presented might be a little controversial, and then check the edit history and how the page has come together. See the in depth discussions, agreements, disagreements that take place to form the pages. Also consider that, while you are trying to discredit Wikipedia for it's acceptance of community editing, it can, and typcially does, work to credit the accuracy of the articles. Wikipedia pages accept community editing, which means not that any jackass can go in and post false information, but that any passionate intellectual can go in and correct information. If edits are made that are controversial, they can be flagged, the issue can be reported, discussion takes place, and conclusions are made not be a lone troll, but as a community of editors passionate and informed on the subject which is being edited. Rather, other websites are the ones you have to watch out for. Any jackass can purchase a cheap domain, a couple of gigabytes on a web server, and post whatever the hell he wants to. He can even make the website look professional so that the masses will accept the false information without question. Is Wikipedia perfect? Of course not. But your insinuations about it are false. You can't simply discredit it because it's community driven, when the fact is that being community driven generally adds to it's credibility. Regarding colleges not allowing Wikipedia to be used as a source - I'd imagine it's for the same reason not anything can be listed as a source on Wikipedia itself. There is criteria to be met. That information on Wikipedia pages doesn't meet that criteria doesn't indicate that the information is incorrect. I'd venture to guess that most college students could still use Wikipedia effectively for research even if their professor strictly forbid the use of Wikipedia as any source - simply use the sources listed on Wikipedia for the information on the Wikipedia page.

Edit: No hard feelings. Hope you have a good evening. I can't imagine that anything else on this topic can really be said without simply being a rephrasal (my made up word for today) of a past post.

 

[Primus]

What are you, in high school? In the real world, every source must be considered critically, and Wikipedia is inherently no more nor less valuable than any other source. Any epistemology which automatically and uncritically accords greater merit to "authoritative" sources, or lesser merit to "un-authoritative" sources is lazy, and itself without merit, value, or use.

What you've committed here is essentially a variant of the ad hominem fallacy. Attack the content, not the source.

(Incidentally, if you bothered to check the attribution, that definition is from the WHO, and is as of much inherent merit – little, if any – as any dictionary.)

A dictionary serves no purpose other than to establish common ground; it cannot authoritatively prove or dictate the meaning of any word.

To further prove my case:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence


While one out of five does suggest value, the top two definitions are value-neutral. This strongly suggests that, absent any context, the word carries no value connotations. Further definitions are irrelevant, as the point is sufficiently made.

Any sort of physical force meets the definitional criteria for "violence".





Few states have sentence enhancements for "aggravated" rape. And even if they all did, it would remain irrelevant. Consider: "assault" is, by definition, violent. And yet there is also "aggravated assault". How do you explain this?

Anyway, since you love definitions:

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31



Get real, buddy.

Your right, I'm in high school and you out did me in defining words and citing webpages and as pointed out we have completely devolved from the original topic. Start a thread on definitions of words and I'll meet you there. :lol:

 

[Citizen]

Your right, I'm in high school and you out did me in defining words and citing webpages and as pointed out we have completely devolved from the original topic. Start a thread on definitions of words and I'll meet you there. :lol:

No. We didn't. You did--with all your red-herrings and evasions.