Va. Tech Shooting

[radical matt]

That comment you snipped out of my post wasn't an ad hominem, Strat. You aren't even trying. You attacked me with your comment, your question wasn't valid, it was a fallacy, a loaded question, and this allegation of 'whining' and that I don't know of what it is I speak is quite unnecessary.

Ico, dude, give it a rest...you won three pages ago. ^_^ Just let the little man have his last word, because he'll keep posting against you over and over again until he gets it. He's the "rock" forum archtype...I think it was rock. The one that will post the same thing over and over, totally ignoring any rebuttle or any other views.

Trust me, anyone reading this knows you aren't a racist and can see that he isn't getting ANY debate points against you but is just fulfilling his need to be self-important, kinda like a little kid tha wants to be the center of attention. By continuing to quote and rebuttle him, you're just giving him the attention he wants.

Just leave him at the kiddy table and join the rest of us in the pro-gun/anti-gun debate, okay? I always like hearing your input in actual REAL debates.


(What's really funny to me is that, while he keeps this notion that the Second Amendment should be killed because it was racist, he has the same mindset as the Founders that only empowered property owners from...was it Locke? The philosopher that said "life, liberty, and property"? Because he keeps saying that deadly force is okay in the defence of property. ^_^ So basically, while accusing you of being racist, and saying the Second Amendment is archaic because of it, he fails to realize that his "property" artument was one of the founding principles of the Constitution too [see the...Fourth Amendment, I think it is? No unwarented searches and siezures and not having to provide room and board for soldiers, but issues of property.] So by that very argument, he sould get rid of his own notion of property, the entire Constitution should be disbanded and ripped up [they only changed property to "persuit of happiness", but the concept of property was VERY important to them...after all, only MALES, who were also LANDOWERS, and over the age of 21, could vote...] and go to a socialistic state, because that's the way that the modern world, in some people's views, should go. ^_^)

Hehe, yeah, to me, that's just really funny. Dramatic irony, right? Not regular irony, that's just something other than its literal intention... -wink-

 

[69Strat]

You attacked me with your comment, your question wasn't valid, it was a fallacy, a loaded question, and this allegation of 'whining' and that I don't know of what it is I speak is quite unnecessary.

On the the point of attacks, I suggest you examine your own use of ad hominems on this thread, rather than continue to whine about it.

 

[69Strat]

Ico, dude, give it a rest...you won three pages ago. ^_^ Just let the little man have his last word, because he'll keep posting against you over and over again until he gets it. He's the "rock" forum archtype...I think it was rock. The one that will post the same thing over and over, totally ignoring any rebuttle or any other views.

Trust me, anyone reading this knows you aren't a racist and can see that he isn't getting ANY debate points against you but is just fulfilling his need to be self-important, kinda like a little kid tha wants to be the center of attention. By continuing to quote and rebuttle him, you're just giving him the attention he wants.

Just leave him at the kiddy table and join the rest of us in the pro-gun/anti-gun debate, okay? I always like hearing your input in actual REAL debates.

It's hardly surprising that you would have to bail out your cohort, who shot himself in the foot with his own argument.

 

[69Strat]

By continuing to quote and rebuttle him, you're just giving him the attention he wants.

Rather than hide behind somebody else's rebuttal, my question to you is: if the majority of NAs and slaves had no right to keep and bear arms, than which racial groups held such rights?

 

[radical matt]

On the the point of attacks, I suggest you examine your own use of ad hominems on this thread, rather than continue to whine about it.

It's hardly surprising that you would have to bail out your cohort, who shot himself in the foot with his own argument.

Rather than hide behind somebody else's rebuttal, my question to you is: if the majority of NAs and slaves had no right to keep and bear arms, than which racial groups held such rights?

Should I even bother...? (NAs...? Native Americans, some of my ancestors, maybe...?) Nah, I'm eating at the adult's table today. And with that in mind...

Ico, don't worry about these. Tell me, what do you think about what I said before about the power gap in the 1 sword/10 people, 10 guns/10 people, and 1 gun/10 people scenarios. I'd be interested to get the input of another intelligent person. I just think it's interesting, though I did think it up myself, simply because it's the first time I've ever tried quantifiably comparing such scenarios. I really am somewhat interested in what you would think about it.

 

[69Strat]

(What's really funny to me is that, while he keeps this notion that the Second Amendment should be killed because it was racist, he has the same mindset as the Founders that only empowered property owners from...was it Locke? So by that very argument, he sould get rid of his own notion of property, the entire Constitution should be disbanded and ripped up [they only changed property to "persuit of happiness", but the concept of property was VERY important to them...

You are attempting to tie in two unrelated arguments: my argument on the 2nd Amendment (premised on the predominantly white right to keep and bear arms, which excluded other racial groups), versus my position on the use of deadly force to defend property (an exception found mostly in modern legal applications).

The common law view on defending property was not rooted in the deadly use of force. Thus, it is has no application to this discussion, much less your suggesting that the Constitution should be ripped up because of it.

 

[69Strat]

Should I even bother...? it.

The question is straight forward:

if the majority of NAs and slaves had no right to keep and bear arms, than which racial groups held such rights?

What it boils down to is having the courage to answer it.

 

[radical matt]

You are attempting to tie in two unrelated arguments: my argument on the 2nd Amendment (premised on the predominantly white right to keep and bear arms, which excluded other racial groups), versus my position on the use of deadly force to defend property (an exception found mostly in modern legal applications).

The common law view on defending property was not rooted in the deadly use of force. Thus, it is has no application to this discussion, much less your suggesting that the Constitution should be ripped up because of it.

Oh yeah, I also forgot to say in my last post that I would like to hear people's feedback on the three misconceptions I posted above. I mean, I know how some people hold idealized views, and, in fact, I'm happy about that...such views give us a way to get to a better age, though we must first go through the present age to get there. I know some of the anti-gun people are under the impression that these misconceptions are true, and that's why I'm trying to draw attention to such misconceptions. The only way to fight stereotypes and improve society is with knowledge and healthy debate, right? So yeah. ^_^


Oh, did I just ignore what someone posted...? Hm...oh, right, it had no relevance to the topic at hand, so it doesn't matter, does it? It was trying to tie in unrelated arguments and, thus, it has no application to this discussion, does it?

Such red herrings are best left ignored so that we can debate the real issue, which path we should take, whether it is more guns, or less guns, to ensure the safety of ourselves and of future generations. ^_^

 

[radical matt]

Perhaps you are, but you did describe him as a troll... not that his argumentative tactics are different. I would like to ask him for proof of his assertions against me, but I notice that he is being repetitive without an iota of proof.

Ah, point taken. It's been around five years since I saw/took that quiz, so I've kind of forgoten...or was it even a quiz? I don't remember. There were a LOT of archtypes though (like more than 50...), so I guess I kinda mixed them up.

You made good points, none of which I had any disagreement. The concept of getting rid of all guns everywhere made me consider the success of Virginia Tech's policy of ridding its campus of guns and how successful the US could ever be. Speaking of power gaps, unlike the Virginia Tech administration, the US cannot disarm, however, so the power gap between the government and the people would be vast, but by 'the people' that would only include those willing to obey the law. I wouldn't think a large majority would.

Virginia Tech also failed in keeping guns from entering their campus from the outside world, and their no-gun policy rests on that success. The US fails to keep drugs out of the country. What success will the US government have on keeping out the guns, assuming it ever finds those that would be hidden throughout the country? The criminal/terrorist element would remain armed, as well as the government. I can see why the militia is still relevant today. Although, I'm not quick to suggest that Virginia Tech, or my school, should allow CCWs as its own version of a 'militia' to settle the potential of a 'power gap'. Would you like that idea on your campus?

Gee, I hadn't thought of that. Va. Tech as an example of "100% gun control" (since guns are already banned from the campus.) Good point, Ico. And yes, that's what I'm saying. We can't keep drugs out. We can't keep illegal aliens out. We can't even keep kids under 18 from getting cigarettes, or kids uner 21 from getting alcohol, or kids under 18 from getting alcohol, AND these same kids from getting drugs. And a lot of these kids are unemployed, don't have a lot of money, and don't even have liscenses to drive to go out of their way to get this stuff.

...how much harder, then, to stop determined adults from getting their hands on guns and bring them into the prohibited area (be it a school or a nation.)


As for the campus thing...yes, I would like that. Heck, I wouldn't even mind getting a conceled-carry liscense and being registered with the state (even though I despise the idea of registration) if I knew it would allow me to carry it everywhere with me. I trust my peers. Besides, for every one that has bad intentions and is planning to use their gun for a bad end, there will be 10 or more like me to stop them cold when they try to inact said plan. I would feel MUCH safer. Heck, I'd feel MUCH safer if even just the professors were armed. Nothing like Va. Tech could happen if as soon as someone like Cho pulled out their gun and started shooting all the students and professors pulled out theirs and shot back.


I guess my point is, the power gap is too great, and it's totally impossible for us to suceed in any ban since all the world is so intertwined. The only way it would work is the highly unrealistic scenario of all weapons in the world being destroyed and all nations disbanding their militaries. But even then, things would just go into the crapper with the restoration of "survival of the fittest" and "might makes right". Guns are a weapon of intellect, a product of man's inginuity, which allows the weak and intelligent to fight evenly against brutish thugs.

I still don't like guns, but without them, the strong (physically) will prey on the weak, and if the government is also disarmed, no one can stop them. It is this, NOT everyone having guns, that would lead to a total breakdown of society and a move to a post-modern gang/tribal situation, where the strong banded together to roam the lands and prey on the weak. After all, that is what happened in Human history prior to the manufacture of firearms and militaries. Look at Europe in the post-Roman (or pre-Greco) eras, or even fudal Japan or ancient China. Barbarians were free to use their physical strength and group mentality to raid defenseless villages and such. It is also such times as those that gave rise to such things as the martial arts and walls (like the Great Wall) being built up to defend against such things.

For better or worse, armies, weapons, and guns (and guns more than anything else) have allowed for the creation of complex societies. If you doubt this, think for a moment if you disarmed all police officers of their guns. How do you think the inner cities of places like New York or Los Angeles would fare? Would it not decend into a helish chaos rather quickly as the gangs, which are already borderline out of control, no longer had to worry about police officers with guns?

 

[69Strat]

The question below is open to every one.

If the majority of native Americans and slaves had no right to keep and bear arms, than which racial groups held such rights?

 

[radical matt]

I think I am gonna bite on this, if just to keep other people from having to deal with it.

The question below is open to every one.

If the majority of native Americans and slaves had no right to keep and bear arms, than which racial groups held such rights?

...what does it matter?

It doesn't.

 

[69Strat]

(NAs...? Native Americans, some of my ancestors, maybe...?) Nah, I'm eating at the adult's table today.

You can rest assured that the native Americans and slaves didn't get to eat at the "adult's table" when they drafted the Bill of Rights.

That concludes my argument.

 

[radical matt]

You can rest assured that the native Americans and slaves didn't get to eat at the "adult's table" when they drafted the Bill of Rights.

That concludes my argument.

Wow...that was an argument? I could have sworn that was someone quoting someone else, but having no idea what the quoted material is talking about and instead bending that "quote" and redefining it.


By adult's table, I meant some of us in here are adults and able to debate serious topics. The term "adult's table" has nothing to do with distribution of rights. And check your history, the native Americans and slaves weren't the ones who drafted the Bill of Rights. ^_^


Again...that was an argument? How...sad.

 

[69Strat]

Wow...that was an argument?

Here's my argument in a nutshell as it applies to firearms.

Thus, to argue the relevance of the 2nd Amendment as it applies to our modern multicultural society is the equivalent of asserting that only whites have the right to bear arms, since the original doctrine makes no exception for any race outside of itself to exercise such rights.

It is in this context that the right to bear arms must be amended to better reflect individual interests against those interests of society in regulating and controlling the purchase and ownership of firearms, for the benefit, peace and general good of the community.

 

[69Strat]

And check your history, the native Americans and slaves weren't the ones who drafted the Bill of Rights. ^_^

It was intended as a metaphor and sarcasm, but probably could be re-phrased. So, yes, you are correct, they didn't draft the BoR.

 

[69Strat]

It's a shame, considering that slaves were considered property, but so too were cows; they weren't meant to be armed.

What I find tragic, is somebody who would compare slaves to a cow. Based on the open bigotry around here, I've decided not to participate in this discussion, or any others for that matter.

Enjoy your discussion. You win.

 

[opinterph]

… relevance to the topic at hand

… unrelated arguments … are best left ignored so that we can debate the real issue, which path we should take, whether it is more guns, or less guns, to ensure the safety of ourselves and of future generations. ^_^

I think it was inevitable that this thread would include a robust discussion about guns. Having looked back over the entire thread, I note that most of the posters’ suggestions to prevent situations like the VT incident have a direct or indirect relation to guns. These suggestions include a wide range of approaches and no doubt reflect similar discussions taking place in the US and elsewhere.

Nonetheless, a number of comments within this thread suggest solutions involving issues such as social norms and how they influence personal behavior, mental health treatment, judicial intervention, substance abuse, harsher legal penalties as a means of deterrence, public surveillance, and individual privacy.

I don’t think any of us should automatically assume that a point of discussion is irrelevant to the larger topic in a thread as complex as this.

 

[_AJ_]

...and herein is where your argument ultimately fails; the person doing the shooting already HAS a gun. And they are going to kill people.

The only way to stop this is to remove ALL guns from existence.

no it dosn't if the law were tighter before he wouldn't of had the guns which he purchases through legal channels only in the past few years

 

[sparky95]

Well, I'm real happy all you guys have remembered the victims of the VA.Tech shootings with such dignity and compassion. I'm sure everyone is real proud of you!

 

[divcurl0]

You don't just shoot random people, you only shoot/fight people that you feel are planing to endanger you...

...As Kulindahr said, MOST American gun owners would not attack someone who's just in their yard, especially in full daylight where they can see that a person is unarmed and likely not meaning any harm.

and

How does a gun "over-empower" someone? All it does is level the field, so that the law-abiding aren't reduced to sheep. Taking away guns "under-empowers" people, making them designated victims.

I understand what you are trying to say Matt. Whilst I'm sure you and your dad are good people capable of exercising self restraint, when faced with a threatening situation you would act in a reckless way. Its not about how Americans' think, its about human nature. Guns over-empower people, as I have said many times before, because they are the ultimate form of power.

The Milgram experiment showed that when individuals were given the power to do something up to a point X, over 90% exercised their power to that point X. Is it any wonder why you have so many unneccessary deaths resulting from guns?

Well, here's what you're not understanding. BAN guns does not equal RID THE WORLD of guns. As long as ANY guns exist in the world, this power disparity will exist. This includes, once again, the militaries of nations

This issue needs to disambiguated. On a global level, disarming depends of geopolitical realities. States aren't moral agents, and by their very nature act in their own selfish interests, so youd expect conflicts to arise every now and again.

BUT 'postmodern' states, who know better than to exploit or interfere with other states, can resolve conflict without resorting to violence (like its inconceivable European states would war with each other). So for the US, the question of disarming is meaningless if its pillaging other countries (thats a bit like serial killer giving charity). The US needs guns because it knows that it is opening itself to attack with its current foreign policies.

On a local level, I understand what you are saying about there being a power gap as guns can be illegally acquired by "evil" people. But what I am saying is that the power gap will be smaller if guns are banned. We can analyse who these "evil" people are. They are either a)irrational people (psychopaths) b)rational people, eg. gang members, burglars, etc. Unfortunatly, you can't stop people like Cho, no matter what firearm legislation you have (what with our reaction times and all). I have always maintained that you can kill someone if you are sure, on the balance of probabilities, that you yourself, or others around you will be killed by that person but if you posses a gun, your will likely surpass this minimum threshold for tje reason I gave above. Ofcourse everyone has a right to feel safe, so you can, for example, initiate "Neighbourhood Watch programmes" which are very successful in keep nasty people away from an area.

An eye for an eye and a rape for a rape.

that sounds really weird. TBH, and sorry to sound crass about it, but the rapist would not feel the same strength of negative emotions you felt during and after your ordeal, infact I think a rapist would enjoy being 'raped' by his victim and it would be painful for the victim to relive her experience in such a way. So its not quite eye for an eye; you can't quantify a 'wrong' just as much as you can't quantify 'love'.

But once again, they've given up their rights by attempting to rape me. They no longer have the right to life and it would only be by compassion on the part of the victim that the rapist should be allowed to even live.

This is inconsistent with your eye for an eye doctrine.

Justice is NEVER served by people rotting in prison. THAT is revenge, but it's not even good revenge, since it's the state, not the victim, that is getting revenge on the criminal, and it's not a fair "eye for an eye" revenge at that.

Justice is when you are forced to spend night and day thinking about what you did wrong.

But stop and think for a moment, if the Palestianians were able to defend themselves with guns against the Israeli military, then they couldn't be preyed upon and would have won their freedom long ago, well before reaching the point of dispair that pushes one to the brink where they are so hateful for being oppressed and so hurt and depressed that they will kill themselves as long as they think it will hurt the ones they see as hurting them...not unlike Mr. Cho, as it seems he felt the same way.

Palestinian suicide bombers kill themselves, because they feel it is the only constructive thing they can to win freedom for their fellow people. There goal isn't to hurt Israeli people per se, but to make a defient statement against their continued subjugation through the only mean available to them. The still have their sanity intact before killing themselves; infact when you are really dedicated to a cause you believe in, you are prepared to die for it (Dr Martin Luther King was prepared to die for his Noble Cause, and he felt liberated when he realised he was).

Right, and I'm generally against those actions. Honestly, I'd almost prefer an Isolationist policy, which includes not being part of the UN and having our economy cut off from the global economy. However, in the modern era, this is simply impossible and I understand that. I also understand that nation leaders are humans and are going to make mistakes, either because they're human (and thus falible),

No, its nothing to do with humans being fallible; US foreign policy decisions on th whole are cold and calculated. When you use white phosphorous wantonly, you know that peoples skin will literally melt down to their bones; when you drop a bomb in a concentrated area of civilians, you know that children will die; when you block aid convoys carrying food and medication, you know that you will causes immense misery. Do you think it is right to accrue "some political/economic/power gains" through such cold, heartless, inhumane means? If other countries did any of those things to you, how would you react?

It should also be noted, however, that we give quite freely to many nations across the world; both out government in relief, aid, and supplies to people, and our people, giving from their own wallets, also give to people around the world, people hurt by war and tyranny, as well as people hurt or displaced by natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis.

US's aid budget is only 0.2% of its GNP (compared to 0.7% in the EU), and much of those goes to propping up repressive dictatorships, like that of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and Turkey. The biggest recipient has consistently been Israel, a supposedly democractic first world country which as I said, loves to oppress the people it occupies). Also the US (more precisly the IMF, which is a basically an extension of the US Treasury) loans to vile, brutal kleptocrats (like Suharto of Indonesia) who make become filthy rich, and take their wealth back to the US, leaving the starving people, deprived of basic things like health and education, to socialise the debt plus interest (which oftentimes double or treble the original debt)! It is literally stealing from the poor, only poor here is unimaginably poor. I sometimes wonder, does the US have no shame?

Ofcourse the good people of America, are generous in some regards, but as I said in my earlier post about private charity, Americans are oblivious of worldwide human suffering, and given how little air time serious crises get in the mainstream media, a cynical person would say Americans just don't care. (you are only interested in news that interest you and maybe that why media outlets would rather report on Britney Spears or Paris Hilton rather than the real tragedies like mass starvation in Sudan)

Ah, but the difference is, the US isn't an imperial nation (despite how people say it is.) If we were, there wouldn't be a civil war in Iraq right now; we simply would have nuked it and then anexed the country as the 51st state.

Ah, but colonialsm also works by proxy, infact its more efficient to set up puppets to do your bidding. If you read about the new oil laws, you'll see that all of Iraq's Oil wealth, won't be staying in Iraq, but will be going to America. No goverment in the right mind would allow that to happen, and I challenge you to say otherwise. If people still think America would still have invaded Iraq if it had bananas instead of Oil, they must be truly deluded. I mean, its really beyond parody how blatently the US can get away such War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

And again, as I said before, sometimes the only defense is to meet force with force. When you're dealing with other good people, peaceful protest works wonders, because good people WANT peace. They will reason with you and compromise with you, so that you can both live in peace. However, when you deal with evil people, they don't want peace, so you either protest with force, or you die. The mindset in the US is that we will protest with force. The mindset in Europe seems to be that they'll peacefully protest instead...and die...they just leave the "and die" part off, hoping the evil people of this world will forget about it. Sadly, they won't...

No one has an axe to grind with Europe, so the "European are wimps" argument simply doesnt hold water. Look, I don't judge people by what they think, I judge people by what they do: would you agree that this is fair? People do have a serious axe to grind with the US for its inhumane foreign policies. Looking at what the US has done, I would say it is by far the most "evil" country in the world today.

I ask you again: why does the US need "defend" itself in other countries, what "force" did these other countries use against the US? I challenge you to give me atleast 1 example.