WaterMan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 What would you do, take the beating and hope they stopped short of killing you? That's what Jesus tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 That's what Jesus tried. I'll be the first to admit I'm not Jesus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 miserable, pathetic fail. conspiring in the commission of a crime is a far cry from the weak, contorted logic of "incitement" in the hate crimes laws. the indictment against bin laden doesn't invoke the hate crime laws, for good reason. The Bin Laden argument is nearly but not as bad as protecting anyone in power from punishment if it can be proven they incited specific acts, which it appears perch is implying. Note that the Bin Laden bit was an ETA, one admittedly intended to push the envelope. This does not change the fact that the argument directly above it is absolutely valid and why we can't completely dismiss incitement. Recognizing the difference between some nut job deciding his preacher wants him to kill a gay dude because he said homosexuality is a sin and punishing someone who uses his position of power to essentially direct people towards acts of hate is exactly why we have courts and not computers deciding who is guilty. However, perch has made it abundantly clear that he is incapable of any rational thought (which despite his insistence that he's a great shot makes me pretty certain that the world is absolutely not a safer place with him owning a gun (oh, and perch, that wasn't intended as an insult )). Because as soon as I brought this up, he went straight to the Free Speech card. As if, telling someone to kill someone else should be protected under the Bill of Rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Why is Hitler worse than anyone else who wanted to take over the world? Now, of course you went right to murder because that's the one place that it matters less than anything else. If you kill someone because you were trying to rob their watch it doesn't much matter. You just killed someone and are now a murderer. The part where it matters is where you distinguish someone beating the crap out of someone who had, say slept with your wife versus you and your buddies coming up on some random gay/jewish/black person and beating him up because you don't like his type in your neighborhood. It's not like the first guy should just get off without punishment because you can't just go around beating people up. But it's a far cry from doing something to someone who you don't even know because of their religion, race, or lifestyle choice. OK, let's take murder out of it. Is your house less vandalized because someone hates you as opposed to some gang kid "tagging" his neighborhood? Are you less bruised and battered as a white guy than you would be as a black/jew/ghey? The point I'm trying to make is that being the thought police is very Orwellian, and downright dangerous. And as to your response to perch - who decides who can think for themselves and who can't? What if I decide you can't? I mean, you're selling dog at a resturant, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 detlef, I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe in free speech. If a preacher funds murder like Bin Laden did, then the preacher should be brought up on charges for the crimes he committed. If all a preacher does as spout his screwed up beliefs, then no, I don't think he should be brought up on charges, as I don't see that he has broken any laws. I would like to see those that actually committed the crime punished to the fullest extent of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 OK, let's take murder out of it. Is your house less vandalized because someone hates you as opposed to some gang kid "tagging" his neighborhood? Are you less bruised and battered as a white guy than you would be as a black/jew/ghey? The point I'm trying to make is that being the thought police is very Orwellian, and downright dangerous. And as to your response to perch - who decides who can think for themselves and who can't? What if I decide you can't? I mean, you're selling dog at a resturant, right? I think in the example I gave, it's quite apparent. If several violent crimes are committed by people who all belong to a group and it is shown that the leader of that group is specifically inciting this action, then perhaps these guys can't think for themselves and that guy needs to be punished. I'm not saying let the guys who did the actual crime off, I'm saying punish the lead guy as well. As for thought police, there's a difference between randomly punishing people for what they think and setting a level of punishment on someone who did something wrong based on their motives. We do it all the time with killing. Why do we have 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc? I mean, the person's dead in every situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 detlef, one of us is an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 detlef, I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe in free speech. If a preacher funds murder like Bin Laden did, then the preacher should be brought up on charges for the crimes he committed. If all a preacher does as spout his screwed up beliefs, then no, I don't think he should be brought up on charges, as I don't see that he has broken any laws. I would like to see those that actually committed the crime punished to the fullest extent of the law. So it comes down to money? If I tell someone that they should go kill someone and they do, that's no big deal. But if I tell them to kill someone and give them enough money to buy a gun, then I'm an accomplice? This, of course, is assuming that I am in some position of authority over you, not just some random dude at a bar. Oh, and don't think for a moment that I'm suggesting the guys who actual pull the trigger should get off. And yes, like you, I saw the film in grade school where the dude dressed up like Hitler and stood on the corner saying what a great man he was. I'm not talking about allowing people to say hateful things. I'm saying that we can't take that so far that we 100% discount the power of words and orders. And if, in a court of law, it can be proven that someone in power not only said hateful things but made directions on how to enforce that hate, and it could be reasonably shown that resulted in crimes... If a preacher tells a 10 year old boy that the way to heaven is to rape his little sister, he's neither paid for or made him do anything. Nor has he touched anyone. He's simply abused his power. But, hey, it's free speech, right? They can make their own decisions. So, now it comes out that a half dozen boys in the same church were doing this because the priest said so. Say it can be proven somehow. Guessing that's not going to go over to well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Because as soon as I brought this up, he went straight to the Free Speech card. As if, telling someone to kill someone else should be protected under the Bill of Rights. are you saying hate crimes laws don't touch on the issue of free speech at all? because the courts don't exactly agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 So it comes down to money? If I tell someone that they should go kill someone and they do, that's no big deal. But if I tell them to kill someone and give them enough money to buy a gun, then I'm an accomplice? This, of course, is assuming that I am in some position of authority over you, not just some random dude at a bar. the law has, for centuries, had tests of causation and liability to determine who can be found guilty of a crime and for what level of participation, and for the most part they are extremely rational and they work. and they don't get into the messy business of trying to police thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 are you saying hate crimes laws don't touch on the issue of free speech at all? because the courts don't exactly agree. Not at all. Which is precisely why I, like the AG in perch's link, said that preachers shouldn't have to worry about simply saying such and such is a sin because that shouldn't be enough of a link between a hate crime and incitement. At the same time, we shouldn't, as it appears perch is advocating, protect these guys entirely if a plausible link can be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 What would you do, take the beating and hope they stopped short of killing you? No, I've been more than a few violent situations and handled myself well without getting injured. I tend to believe that introducing a firearm into a potentially violent situation may escalate the incident rather than diffuse it. Plus, after listening to you for a few years I get the impression that you look forward to the day somebody kicks down your door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 i love the fact that some in this world can read the minds of others and know their intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 That's got to be sending Akron home prices through the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 How is this not bigger news? This is racism beyond belief. The politician that called MJ a pedophile is getting more media attention for racism (arguably against a white dude ) than this story is getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 Plus, after listening to you for a few years I get the impression that you look forward to the day somebody kicks down your door. Actually it's just the opposite. I live in a very secluded neighborhood that most people don't even know exists. I have an audible alarm on all my doors and windows which automatically calls the sheriff's department, and I have two 70 lb dogs with very ferocious barks, one that stays in the back yard, another that stays in the house. I also have motion activated flood lights all around my house. The guns would be a last resort. There are plenty of other deterrents, which should ward off any rational thief. The guns are for the irrational thief. You are confusing my willingness to protect my family with a desire for violence, which I assure you I do not have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Your comment has no basis, either statistically or anecdotely, particularly since you've never seen me or my wife shoot. My wife and I are both pretty good shots, as we practice often. We both put in more range time than the average cop does in a year. So, please tell me what you base this on, or are you just talking out of your ass again? I was only just pointing out that the chances of an accident are extremely greater than you being confronted by a gang of roving black teenagers, which you cited as one of the reasons you're carrying a concealed weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 I was only just pointing out that the chances of an accident are extremely greater than you being confronted by a gang of roving black teenagers, which you cited as one of the reasons you're carrying a concealed weapon. Actually I didn't mention one race in particular, and went as far to say "if a group of people, regardless of race, attacked...", and that is only one of several reasons me and my wife feel it is appropriate to carry. Others include, preventing theft, preventing rape, protecting ourselves from animals such as dogs, snakes, and wild hogs which are abundant where I live. Often times I work late at night, so my wife is home with just the kids and the dogs, working late also has me alone in my office which has been broken into twice in the last 5 years, and I had the window to my office actually knocked out by someone throwing a rock about a year ago. Another reason for wanting a CHL is that if you have one you don't have to do the FBI background check when you buy a gun, so they will have no idea what I buy, unless start buying restricted weapons. I may be a little paranoid, but I don't trust the Fed to wipe the background records after 90 days like they are supposed to, and wouldn't put it past this congress and administration to remove the requirement to wipe the records. What kind of accident do you think would happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Actually I didn't mention one race in particular, and went as far to say "if a group of people, regardless of race, attacked...", and that is only one of several reasons me and my wife feel it is appropriate to carry. Others include, preventing theft, preventing rape, protecting ourselves from animals such as dogs, snakes, and wild hogs which are abundant where I live. Often times I work late at night, so my wife is home with just the kids and the dogs, working late also has me alone in my office which has been broken into twice in the last 5 years, and I had the window to my office actually knocked out by someone throwing a rock about a year ago. Another reason for wanting a CHL is that if you have one you don't have to do the FBI background check when you buy a gun, so they will have no idea what I buy, unless start buying restricted weapons. I may be a little paranoid, but I don't trust the Fed to wipe the background records after 90 days like they are supposed to, and wouldn't put it past this congress and administration to remove the requirement to wipe the records. What kind of accident do you think would happen? "Just another friendly reminder why NO ONE should live in Texas . . ." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 What kind of accident do you think would happen? Do you honestly think there are greater odds of a gang of youths attacking you and your family than an accident occurring with your firearm and needlessly causing harm to someone? Seriously. I'm not judging your intent on carrying a weapon. Knock yourself out and try not to shoot anyone who doesn't deserve it. I'm just calling baloney on this as an excuse for you to carry one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 Do you honestly think there are greater odds of a gang of youths attacking you and your family than an accident occurring with your firearm and needlessly causing harm to someone? Seriously. I'm not judging your intent on carrying a weapon. Knock yourself out and try not to shoot anyone who doesn't deserve it. I'm just calling baloney on this as an excuse for you to carry one. Absolutely. My guns are locked in a safe when not in use. If I were to carry, the gun I would carry would remained holstered at all times except in cases of an emergency or when I'm at the range. As a matter of fact, the way the gun laws are written, if you do not keep them concealed you lose your license, so it isn't like I'm going to be waiving it around. The gun I intend to carry has two safeties so there is virtually no chance of it firing unintentionally. If you look at the statistics you are much more likely to die as a result of violent crime than you are as a result of an accidental shootings. To take it a step further, most accidental shootings are caused by someone unfamiliar with fire arms, or children unsupervised access to firearms. I am very familiar with fire arms, as a proficiency test is required in order to get an CHL, and as I said earlier when my guns are not being used, they are in a locked safe that my kids can't get into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 alone in my office which has been broken into twice in the last 5 years, and I had the window to my office actually knocked out by someone throwing a rock about a year ago If only you were packing heat so you could mow them down in a hail of gunfire. What a great reason to carry a handgun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 If only you were packing heat so you could mow them down in a hail of gunfire. What a great reason to carry a handgun! Luckily nobody was working late when those incidents happened. I wouldn't draw a gun for a rock through the window, but you can bet I would if someone were breaking in. I'd be hold up in my office, yelling at them that I am armed and will shoot on site unless if they do not identify themselves and they pass my office door. I'd also tell them I was calling 911, which is exactly what I would do. What do you see that is wrong with that scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Actually I didn't mention one race in particular, and went as far to say "if a group of people, regardless of race, attacked...", and that is only one of several reasons me and my wife feel it is appropriate to carry. Others include, preventing theft, preventing rape, protecting ourselves from animals such as dogs, snakes, and wild hogs which are abundant where I live. Often times I work late at night, so my wife is home with just the kids and the dogs, working late also has me alone in my office which has been broken into twice in the last 5 years, and I had the window to my office actually knocked out by someone throwing a rock about a year ago. Another reason for wanting a CHL is that if you have one you don't have to do the FBI background check when you buy a gun, so they will have no idea what I buy, unless start buying restricted weapons. I may be a little paranoid, but I don't trust the Fed to wipe the background records after 90 days like they are supposed to, and wouldn't put it past this congress and administration to remove the requirement to wipe the records. What kind of accident do you think would happen? You have a gun in your office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 You have a gun in your office? Not currently. It would be irresponsible to leave it unattended, and it would be a serious PIA having to take it home each day without a CHL. In 60 days or so I probably will carry one on most days, but definitely days I'm working late. My office has a "No Fire Arms" sign on the front door as well as on the gate to our lay-down yard, but it does not reference Texas Penal Code Section 30.06, so it isn't binding to a person with a CHL, unless the owner of the building or manager of the business specifically ask me to leave while carrying, and I just don't see me asking myself that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.