0
0

Taking Responsibility for Our Actions(Arizona Shooter)


 invite response                
2011 Jan 11, 12:21am   11,088 views  40 comments

by NuttBoxer   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

The reaction of many to the shooting in Arizona necessitates a reminder of a fundamental flaw in the thinking of most modern day Americans. When a tragedy like this happens we tend to blame guns, political factions, even the policies of those who were targeted. But the sole, let me repeat that SOLE responsible entity for the senseless violence that killed six people is Jared Loughner. No one and nothing else, just Jared Loughner. Because in the end he made the decision to pull the trigger. In court Jared won't be able to blame his gun, or any political faction for his crime. He will bear the punishment alone, because in the end we are all accountable for the decisions we make. A gun cannot be sentenced to death, and you cannot jail an ideology. These are excuses that seek to avoid personal responsibility, and this type of thinking is a sad commentary on the country we have become.

We need to start taking responsibility for our lives and our mistakes and quit blaming every fad, ideal, or inanimate object that comes along. Guns are not inherently evil, neither is money, drugs, or government. It is people who misuse the guns, people who steal the money, people who abuse the drugs, and PEOPLE who corrupt the government! Christina Green's parents understand this, we should too.

Stop making excuses, and start taking responsibility!

#crime

Comments 1 - 40 of 40        Search these comments

1   PeopleUnited   2011 Jan 11, 2:34am  

But I thought his high capacity magazine MADE him do it. I thought Glenn Beck MADE him do it. I thought it was societies fault because we failed to recognize he was insane before he proved it to us.

Nuttboxer, are you saying that we can't legislate morality? Our government can't protect us from ourselves? Well, that sure hasn't stopped them from trying has it. Look for a new round of intrusions into personal liberty. Tragic as this situation is, there is no reason to punish everyone for the actions of one. If there was, we should outlaw bars and consumption of alcohol outside your personal residence in order to prevent drunk driving. Something tells me even then we would see drunk drivers committing homicide. Oh, and by the way drunks kill more people every year than high capacity magazines in the hands of private citizens ever will.

2   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 11, 3:31am  

If you agree with the original poster's idiotic assertion on absolute individual responsibility, then:

1) Charles Manson would be free.

2) Individual US soldiers would be found guilty of murder for collateral damage in war time.

3) Hitler would still be ruling Europe. After all, he never killed anyone himself.

4) Hundreds of other examples. David Koresh, Jim Jones, etc.

Conservatives have an inability to think outside extreme absolutes. They cannot seem to fathom that a person can lack the ability to consent to his or her own actions. For example, conservatives do not think that someone who coaches a mentally ill person into committing murder should shoulder any blame for the actions. They also have no problem with gang leaders teaching children to commit vicious crimes since the gang leader doesn't bare any responsibility for the actions of a child.

The original poster confuses personal responsibility with insitutional responsibility. Institutions are expected to act responsibly too.

If an individual is dying of starvation (say a former slave living in the South during segregation) should he steal food to live? Just because Segregationists have made the legal decision to unite together and institutionally deny the former slave access and ability to obtain food, is the former slave fully responsible for his own actions? Simply choosing to exist makes the former slave guilty of stealing? Or do racist Segregationists bare some of the responsibility?

Similarly, if Conservatives unite together and institutionally provide guns to the mentally ill, and suggest violence against another group of people, don't they bare some of the responsibility?

3   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 11, 3:55am  

shrekgrinch says

Did you even READ what was written?
“He will bear the punishment alone”
There is not ‘absolute individual responsibility’ nor do conservatives in general nor anyone else on this thread subscribe to that. It thus all exists in this fantasy reality you maintain in your head.
And thus the rest of your posting is utter trash, too.

Actually, no. The nation is currently debating whether this man is mentally ill, or able to consent to his own actions. At this time, we don't know.

But a mentally ill person cannot by definition, fully consent to his or her own actions due to malfunctions in the brain. I have heard Beck, Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly assert the man is mentally ill.

If he cannot fully consent to his own actions, then another entity may bare some responsibility for his actions. The local sheriff points out the poisonous vitriol spewing forth from the right wing media and other organizations in the area.

I trust law enforcement over radio entertainers any day. If Loughner is ill, the right wing shares some of the blame.

4   tatupu70   2011 Jan 11, 3:58am  

shrekgrinch says

People txting on their phones while driving kill more than high capacity magazines do as well. But that doesn’t stop certain people from looking like fools anyway:

Is that how it works now? It's OK as long as it's not the #1 killer? So it's OK if I market a machete as a kid's toy as long as it doesn't kill more kids than car accidents do?

5   TechGromit   2011 Jan 11, 4:04am  

SoCal Renter says

If you agree with the original poster’s idiotic assertion on absolute individual responsibility, then:
1) Charles Manson would be free.
2) Individual US soldiers would be found guilty of murder for collateral damage in war time.

...

I vote we throw George Bush Jr. in prison, or give him the death penalty. (A.) No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. (B.) Hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians have died as the result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

While it true that Saddam was pretty much a Jerk, (A.) He was no longer an immediate threat to any of the neighboring states or to the United States (B.) He greatly helped to stabilize the region against religions fundamentalism. While Saddam's dictatorship violated more than a few human rights, the country was more or less safe for the everyday citizen. If you asked the average Iraq citizen on the street if we could turn back time and go back to how things were when Saddam was in charge, I believe overwhelmingly 80%+ of them would do so. At least during the Saddam days you didn't have to worry about getting blown up by some wacko on the way to the market. More freedom under American occupation? If the wrong extremist hears you say the wrong thing, you can pretty much kiss you ass goodbye.

6   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 11, 4:19am  

shrekgrinch says

BTW, I still demand proof. Where is it? This is like the third or fourth time I have asked again for it. Where is your PROOF?
The local sheriff is just trying to cover his ass by hoping any idiot w/o functioning brain cells will believe his BS. Guess what? It sure worked…on you.

Do you not trust law enforcement? Do you believe radio and TV entertainers and bloggers over the police? The proof is available for the world to see. I can't help you if you are blinded by hatred and believe the lies of conservative, right-wing pundits. But I recommend you find something to calm yourself before you blow a gasket.

Are you a Birther? Do you also demand proof of Obama's legitimacy as President, even though he has shown the world his birth certificate?

"SHOW ME THE PROOF! SHOW ME THE PROOF! SHOW ME THE PROOF!" screamed the Holocaust denier!

You keep good company!

7   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 11, 5:02am  

shrekgrinch says

SoCal Renter says


Are you a Birther? Do you also demand proof of Obama’s legitimacy as President, even though he has shown the world his birth certificate?

One, no. I don’t demand proof because like you, Obama won’t provide it. Two, he never showed the world his real birth certificate but rather the short hand one Hawaii lets people use…especially for those born out of the country.

Wait, what!?!?! So you claim not to be a Birther but you don't believe Obama has proved his eligibility to be President?

Birthers, by definition, believe Obama has not proven his eligibility.

Despite numerous birth records, affidavits of high officials, and fucking witnesses to his birth!

Sorry, no one can meet the reductive, illogical, and insane demands for proof as required by Birthers.

8   FortWayne   2011 Jan 11, 5:36am  

shrekgrinch says

“In court Jared won’t be able to blame his gun, or any political faction for his crime.”
Sorry, but that is not how courts operate in this day and age.
“A gun cannot be sentenced to death, and you cannot jail an ideology”
Agreed. Common sense. But many people on patrick.net actually believe otherwise on both counts. Its insane.

I think a lot of people were influenced by media. As soon as shooting happened, some politicians took advantage of the situation to cry out against the republican party... just to score political points.

9   Liz Pendens   2011 Jan 11, 5:53am  

To varying extents, words DO matter. And they DO cause damage.

If some idiot falsely shouts "FIRE!!!" in a crowed movie theater, and 6 people are trampled to death, is the person who shouted FIRE at all responsible? The above argument holds he is not: it's the fault of the people who reacted to the alarm and ran on top others. So the instigator can incite the audience if he doesn't tell people to run and push.

10   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 11, 6:15am  

shrekgrinch says

REALLY! WHERE? Show me examples…and not the bogus Hawaiian Certificate of Birth he bandied around with portions blacked out. Where’s the affidavits? Who are the witnesses? Did they swear under oath and penalty of perjury? Where is the documentation for that?
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Non-partisan Fact Check says:

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

The Govenor of Hawaii was present when Obama was born:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/29/hawaiis-gov-wants-reveal-obamas-birth-info/

"What bothers me is that some people who should know better are trying to use this for political reasons," Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times last week. "Maybe I'm the only one in the country that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, 'I was here when that baby was born."

Proof, proof, proof,
where art thou?
The voices in my head,
can't see it in documents
Or testimony of people.
Poor proof, proof, proof,
Where art thou?

11   NuttBoxer   2011 Jan 11, 7:14am  

Obviously People like Manson, Pol Pot, and Hitler are also responsible for THEIR actions. But does their power exist if no one listens, or carries out their orders? The people under them would still be responsible for their part in wrong doing. I think you misunderstood my point SolCal. I do not wish to excuse anyone from being held accountable. My whole point is taking personal responsibility for our actions, not blaming ideals or inanimate objects such as guns. We make the decision to pick up the gun, we make the decision to accept the ideology, therefore, we become responsible for anything that results from these decisions.

As to your assertion that specific individuals with right wing beliefs told this young man to kill those people, sounds like hearsay.

Finally, if you still believe in the "right/left" paradigm you are truly lost. It's a made up debate to distract Americans and divide us. Rich and poor are the only lines that matter, big government and banks vs independence.

12   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 11, 7:45am  

NuttBoxer says

My whole point is taking personal responsibility for our actions, not blaming ideals or inanimate objects such as guns. We make the decision to pick up the gun, we make the decision to accept the ideology, therefore, we become responsible for anything that results from these decisions.

An individual may make the decision to pick up the gun, but institutions made the gun available for picking up in the first place. Guns don't materialize out of thin air.

I haven't heard anyone on the Left blame a gun. What is blamed is the availability of guns, and/or society's laws that permit the concealment and free use of guns.

I could say a suitcase nuclear bomb doesn't kill people, it is the individual detonating the suitcase nuclear bomb. Does that mean we should allow people to have access and free use of suitcase nuclear bombs?

Conservatives love to point to the 2nd Amendment as proof that the nation's founders believed that Americans should be free to own fully automatic AK-47s with high capacity clips, armor piercing rounds, and night vision scopes. But the words AK-47 are not in the Constitution any more than a suitcase nuclear bomb.

Ah, but an atomic bomb, regular people couldn't just build one, right? This is a fantasy comparison...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science

How two students built an A-bomb It's one of the burning questions of the moment: how easy would it be for a country with no nuclear expertise to build an A-bomb? Forty years ago in a top-secret project, the US military set about finding out. Oliver Burkeman talks to the men who solved the nuclear puzzle in just 30 months.

That was forty years ago. Think how fast individuals could make nuclear bombs now if it were legal. In fact, a high school kid built a working nuclear reactor using spare parts and Ebay.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/03/high_school_stu/

While it takes far more energy to run than it produces, Olson’s nuclear reactor is pretty bad-ass, producing 200 million-degree plasma at its core — or, as Olson points out, “several times hotter than the core of the sun.”

So, when you have a weapon that can kill a dozen people quickly and efficiently, can't we pause and consider that there may be some institutional responsibility for the AZ massacre?

13   Liz Pendens   2011 Jan 11, 9:19am  

Nomograph says

bogus Hawaiian Certificate of Birth he bandied around with portions blacked out. Where’s the affidavits? Who are the witnesses? Did they swear under oath and penalty of perjury? Where is the documentation for that?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?

I feel sorry for him to. Further, I don't see the same being requested for the 'true' claims that he was supposedly born in Kenya or elsewhere.

14   Liz Pendens   2011 Jan 11, 9:26am  

Fox News Reports No Link Between Matches, Gasoline and Fire
Beck Busts ‘Mainstream Media Myth’

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – The Fox News Channel today attempted to bust what it called a “mainstream media myth” by reporting that there was no link between matches, gasoline and fire.

“Gasoline and matches don’t start fires,” said Fox host Glenn Beck. “People start fires.”

Mr. Beck went on to say that there was no link between “oxygen, hydrogen and water.”

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/01/12/fox-news-reports-no-link-between-matches-gasoline-and-fire/

15   fsaekar   2011 Jan 11, 11:25am  

SoCal Renter says

NuttBoxer says
I haven’t heard anyone on the Left blame a gun. What is blamed is the availability of guns, and/or society’s laws that permit the concealment and free use of guns.

And the pro-gun side rightly points out that substance regulation is a total failure. Drug war, Prohibition. Moreover, if gun regulation prevented violent crime then we would expect decreases in such crimes AFTER regulation is introduced. South Africa is a perfect example. Now only the criminals are armed.

Conservatives love to point to the 2nd Amendment as proof that the nation’s founders believed that Americans should be free to own fully automatic AK-47s with high capacity clips, armor piercing rounds, and night vision scopes. But the words AK-47 are not in the Constitution any more than a suitcase nuclear bomb.

This cuts both ways. Those who have never been victims of police states ask, "Why do you need an AK-47?" The response is simple: "Why do you need to take away my AK-47?" It is one thing to punish criminals. It is another thing to disarm your future dissidents because, well, they're your way. Welcome to the 20th century... how many millions died in that political environment? It is easy to sit back and make moral pronouncements regarding what people do or do not need based on your comfortable American existence. When the next Gestapo begins kicking down doors, however, political "enemies" do suffer.

16   marcus   2011 Jan 11, 11:41am  

Unless you have a black market AK-47, if we were to become a police state, it seems to me the people with the registered AK-47s would be the ones that they would come after first, unless you owned it because you were part of the police state.

So then this reasoning leads to advocating easy access to unregistered AK-47s. That's the only chance there would be of challenging some future tyrannical govt. But how can we advocate the easy assess of unregistered AK-47s for any criminals that want them ?

17   tatupu70   2011 Jan 11, 12:02pm  

fsaekar says

This cuts both ways. Those who have never been victims of police states ask, “Why do you need an AK-47?” The response is simple: “Why do you need to take away my AK-47?” It is one thing to punish criminals. It is another thing to disarm your future dissidents because, well, they’re your way. Welcome to the 20th century… how many millions died in that political environment? It is easy to sit back and make moral pronouncements regarding what people do or do not need based on your comfortable American existence. When the next Gestapo begins kicking down doors, however, political “enemies” do suffer.

This argument is ridiculous. If the government comes looking for you, your AK-47 won't save you. You realize that, right?

18   fsaekar   2011 Jan 11, 11:20pm  

marcus says

Unless you have a black market AK-47, if we were to become a police state, it seems to me the people with the registered AK-47s would be the ones that they would come after first, unless you owned it because you were part of the police state.
So then this reasoning leads to advocating easy access to unregistered AK-47s. That’s the only chance there would be of challenging some future tyrannical govt. But how can we advocate the easy assess of unregistered AK-47s for any criminals that want them ?

Marcus, it is very questionable whether background checks and registration are at all effective or whether they just cause more headaches for law-abiding citizens and expand the reach of an already bloated government. Here is something you might like to read: http://gunowners.org/fs9301.htm

Regardless, a criminal by definition isn't going to obtain military-grade weapons legally so it is a moot point.

Fortunately, you recognize what tatupo70 doesn't, for some reason: that a well-armed populace is the only populace with a chance of stopping a police state. Notice how he pits me (an individual) against the collective "government". Indeed, an AK-47 cannot save you from a "government" but it thwarts the individuals breaking down your door. Now imagine if every door they break down will have an AK welcoming them. Makes it a little harder for the police state, huh? How hard is this...

My point though wasn't to defend AK-47's. Maybe banning automatic weapons does reduce spree-killing, I don't know. How would you even begin collecting data on that? Typically if someone wants to commit mass murder they use an easily improvised bomb. Should we now have fertilizer registration and background checks? Even seen _44 Minutes_? People that serious modify their weapons anyway.

19   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 11, 11:33pm  

fsaekar says

And the pro-gun side rightly points out that substance regulation is a total failure. Drug war, Prohibition.

By this argument, you believe everyone should be free own a suitcase nuclear weapon. After all, all substance regulation is a total failure.

Utterly ridiculous.

20   tatupu70   2011 Jan 11, 11:42pm  

fsaekar says

Fortunately, you recognize what tatupo70 doesn’t, for some reason: that a well-armed populace is the only populace with a chance of stopping a police state. Notice how he pits me (an individual) against the collective “government”. Indeed, an AK-47 cannot save you from a “government” but it thwarts the individuals breaking down your door. Now imagine if every door they break down will have an AK welcoming them. Makes it a little harder for the police state, huh? How hard is this…

So if I understand you correctly, you were born about 150 years too late. The wild west sounds like just your style.

On second thought--current day Somalia is pretty close too. Is that what you'd like the US to become?

21   FortWayne   2011 Jan 11, 11:52pm  

tatupu70 says

fsaekar says

Fortunately, you recognize what tatupo70 doesn’t, for some reason: that a well-armed populace is the only populace with a chance of stopping a police state. Notice how he pits me (an individual) against the collective “government”. Indeed, an AK-47 cannot save you from a “government” but it thwarts the individuals breaking down your door. Now imagine if every door they break down will have an AK welcoming them. Makes it a little harder for the police state, huh? How hard is this…

So if I understand you correctly, you were born about 150 years too late. The wild west sounds like just your style.
On second thought–current day Somalia is pretty close too. Is that what you’d like the US to become?

Taputu I have to disagree with you. You have never lived and seen how a society almost overnight can turn into a police state. All it takes is a large enough economic crash.

You probably never had some ahole come to your business and tell you that you have to pay him security fee or your kids may not come back from school one day.

In Florida back in the days they had these problems where mafia literally ruled the state, there were shootings during the daylight. Than governor allowed to carry weapons. Mafia dropped off very very fast, because when they started shooting they got shot back at.

Horrible stuff like that happens even today, on a smaller scale than it was before. But it still does. And giving up guns just because we are forgetting what it can be like is very short sighted. Our society seems very cozy right now, most people are overly coddled. But reality of life hits very hard, I'd never give up a right to own guns, guns is what keeps a lot of people in check.

Police isn't going to protect me from a robbery, (they never stop a robbery in progress) they will show up 30 minutes after to collect my body if I don't own a gun. But a gun will protect me from being killed by some ahole who is feeling lucky. My neighbor was shot dead and robbed, I bet he wished he had a gun, but he didn't.

22   NuttBoxer   2011 Jan 12, 12:01am  

It sounds like the arguments for more gun control being discussed are based on personal preference. Some of us are fine with people in our society being able to own powerful assault weapons, and some aren't. I don't think anyone is arguing that simply making something legal means everyone will do it "Wow nuclear weapons are now legal for personal use, lets make a suitcase bomb." Obviously that scenario is ridiculous. Plenty of people own glocks and choose not to go on murderous rampages with them. Making a weapon legal or illegal would not have stopped what happened in Arizona. Guns are illegal in Mexico yet thousands of people have been gunned down there. More regulation just ensures good people will have a harder time getting something that bad people can quickly obtain.

We all have different opinions on what a perfect society should be, or what things we like or don't like, that's fine. The problem is when we want to "legislate" our opinions as mandates and force others to abide by them. A society that allows such activity will quickly find themselves bereft of all freedoms.

23   tatupu70   2011 Jan 12, 12:02am  

ChrisLosAngeles says

But a gun will protect me from being killed by some ahole who is feeling lucky. My neighbor was shot dead and robbed, I bet he wished he had a gun, but he didn’t.

A gun does not stop you from getting killed. It does not stop a bullet from entering your body.

An armed populace does not reduce crime.

24   FortWayne   2011 Jan 12, 12:23am  

tatupu70 says

ChrisLosAngeles says

But a gun will protect me from being killed by some ahole who is feeling lucky. My neighbor was shot dead and robbed, I bet he wished he had a gun, but he didn’t.

A gun does not stop you from getting killed. It does not stop a bullet from entering your body.
An armed populace does not reduce crime.

It reduced it in Florida, maybe you are too young to remember that.

And I'm pretty sure that if my neighbor had a gun and a criminal knew of that fact he would at least not show up when he was home and shoot him. Its common sense, if there is a risk they will try to minimize it.

Another point to add. Illegal guns are pretty easy to get. If you are in military there are plenty of ways to send weapons home, there are other ways. If they make guns illegal all they will do is disarm regular citizens and leave them vulnerable to the gangs that will have guns.

25   tatupu70   2011 Jan 12, 12:49am  

ChrisLosAngeles says

It reduced it in Florida, maybe you are too young to remember that.

Maybe. Do you have any links to articles on it?

I've heard those arguments a thousand times that criminals are scared of people with guns. I invite you to walk the streets of South Chicago or East LA with a gun and see if that stops you from getting robbed. Pretty much everyone there has a gun--how has your theory about reducing crime panned out there?

ChrisLosAngeles says

If they make guns illegal all they will do is disarm regular citizens and leave them vulnerable to the gangs that will have guns.

Again--having a gun won't stop you from being killed. All you'll do is die with a gun in your hands...

26   FortWayne   2011 Jan 12, 1:03am  

tatupu70 says

ChrisLosAngeles says

It reduced it in Florida, maybe you are too young to remember that.

Maybe. Do you have any links to articles on it?
I’ve heard those arguments a thousand times that criminals are scared of people with guns. I invite you to walk the streets of South Chicago or East LA with a gun and see if that stops you from getting robbed. Pretty much everyone there has a gun–how has your theory about reducing crime panned out there?
ChrisLosAngeles says

If they make guns illegal all they will do is disarm regular citizens and leave them vulnerable to the gangs that will have guns.

Again–having a gun won’t stop you from being killed. All you’ll do is die with a gun in your hands…

Taputu... gun wont stop me from getting killed perhaps, but it will reduce the chances significantly. You can't use all or nothing argument because that would be a fallacy... might as well not have police since they don't completely remove criminals if you use the same type of logic.

I don't know how it is in Chicago, I have heard that it is bad in many ways (and I think concealed carry is illegal). But in Florida it was exact opposite.

As far as link here is a google search link. Plenty of articles about it:
google: "florida crime rate solved with gun laws"
also google: "take your guns to work"

Bottom line is that if you take guns away from regular citizens who do not go through illegal hoops to obtain firearms you will disarm honest citizens leaving them vulnerable to criminals who will find ways to keep guns. Guns aren't the only solution to all the crime, but they do help in many situations and that cannot be disregarded.

27   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 12, 2:28am  

NuttBoxer says

I don’t think anyone is arguing that simply making something legal means everyone will do it “Wow nuclear weapons are now legal for personal use, lets make a suitcase bomb.” Obviously that scenario is ridiculous. .

I have posted links (in this thread or another) showing how two high school students in 2003 built a nuclear reactor using nothing but spare parts and stuff purchased on Ebay. In the 1960s, the US military conducted a study and concluded it would take a couple of men about 30 months to construct a workable atom bomb.

This is not ridiculous.

Building a small nuclear warhead, capable of leveling a city block or two, is completely within the means plenty of people. The instructions and most of the equipment is available.

Why has this not happened? Prohibition Laws. The source material, enriched uranium, is illegal.

Gun Control opponents cannot answer this simple question - why doesn't the Second Amendment also give me the right to own a suitcase nuclear weapon?

They don't answer the question. They just call it 'ridiculous' and assert that 'no one' would ever want one.

Well, if my neighbor can own an automatic rifle with a high capacity clip, I want a small nuclear device capable of blowing up a couple city blocks. It would provide a strong deterrent against theives, mobsters, and tyrannical government officials.

28   NuttBoxer   2011 Jan 12, 5:01am  

I understand you are very into your scenario, but you missed the point. Like I said, making it legal to own/make such a weapon would not cause a stampede of people to the local power plant demanding uranium. You see, most people don't want to make nuclear bombs, whether they can or not. And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they'll do it regardless of the law.

Having a suitcase bomb isn't ridiculous because it can happen, but assuming the law is all that's holding us back from rushing to make one is.

29   tatupu70   2011 Jan 12, 5:04am  

NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can't deny that.

30   NuttBoxer   2011 Jan 12, 5:51am  

tatupu70 says

NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can’t deny that.

Whaa!?

Who? Do YOU desire to make an atomic bomb? I personally don't know a single person who does. Or are you saying we should make blanket laws that affect millions of people because of the 5 dingbats who think building nukes in their basement is fun? Or mayyybe you're saying only law abiding citizens build nukes since the law is all that's stopping them?

31   tatupu70   2011 Jan 12, 6:09am  

NuttBoxer says

tatupu70 says


NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can’t deny that.

Whaa!?
Who? Do YOU desire to make an atomic bomb? I personally don’t know a single person who does. Or are you saying we should make blanket laws that affect millions of people because of the 5 dingbats who think building nukes in their basement is fun? Or mayyybe you’re saying only law abiding citizens build nukes since the law is all that’s stopping them?

Personally, I do not desire to make an atomic bomb. But I'm pretty sure there are guys in Al Qaeda that do.

I think we need to balance public safety against personal freedom when we make laws. Like we already do. Or would you rather we not have drunk driving laws?

32   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 12, 7:09am  

NuttBoxer says

tatupu70 says


NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can’t deny that.

Whaa!?
Who? Do YOU desire to make an atomic bomb? I personally don’t know a single person who does. Or are you saying we should make blanket laws that affect millions of people because of the 5 dingbats who think building nukes in their basement is fun? Or mayyybe you’re saying only law abiding citizens build nukes since the law is all that’s stopping them?

It has nothing to do with:

1) Whether or not I can I make a small nuclear bomb. If legalized, there are plenty of companies that could fill this niche and produce small nuclear bombs for buyers.

2) Whether their is current observable demand for the product or not. Was there a demand for Facebook in 1983? Who knows since it wasn't around. An aggressive company with a good marketing campaign could seed demand for suitcase nuclear bombs across the US. Hell, there may even be suitcase nuclear bomb collectors if legalized! Imagine owning ever smaller versions of these weapons of mass destruction in cool concept colors! Radio-active Green! Nuetronic Neon Yellow! You could probably get them shrunk down into building destroying iPod sizes once the Japanese started mass producing them. If you can't envision urban yuppies proudly showing off their suitcase nuclear bomb as a conversation piece during a wine and cheese party, you have no imagination.

High capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets, folding stocks - there was no public demand for these prior to their marketing to the public.

You still haven't answered the question: Why doesn't the 2nd Amendment guarentee my right to bear nuclear arms if it guarentees high capacity magazines?

I should address the "if they do aspire to do it they will regardless of the law". Actually, this is empirically false, as no individual has ever obtained the necessary source materials to construct one. The illegality AND the enforcement of the laws, has prevented a daranged maniac from setting off a nuke in an American city.

And yes, we have blanket laws on 300 million Americans because 5 sickos want to crush baby animals with their bare feet and film it so they can masterbate to it. I have not lost a night of sleep over that particular loss of my liberties.

33   Â¥   2011 Jan 12, 10:27am  

But the sole, let me repeat that SOLE responsible entity for the senseless violence that killed six people is Jared Loughner. No one and nothing else, just Jared Loughner.

But when a muslim wanted to build a community center in lower manhattan . . . Palin & friends were attacking the ever-loving shit out of him.

Now that the radical right is being hoisted on its own eliminationist petard, out come the appeals to moderation and fairness.

Blow it out your ass.

34   NuttBoxer   2011 Jan 13, 2:42am  

tatupu70 says

Personally, I do not desire to make an atomic bomb. But I’m pretty sure there are guys in Al Qaeda that do.
I think we need to balance public safety against personal freedom when we make laws. Like we already do. Or would you rather we not have drunk driving laws?

Ensuring personal freedom automatically guards public safety, the separation you're making doesn't exist. Our country was founded on the belief that all men had the right to be free, and not have their freedoms infringed upon. When Loughner shot those people he tried to take away their right to live. In a free society the rights of all must be respected. You can live your life how you want as long as you don't attempt to take others rights away.

What you really refer to when you say guarding public safety is the government controlling our lives, because we need them to MAKE us safe. You believe in safety by denying freedom, I believe in safety by ensuring it.

35   NuttBoxer   2011 Jan 13, 2:49am  

SoCal Renter says

NuttBoxer says

tatupu70 says

NuttBoxer says

And if they do(kind of a strange thing to aspire to), they’ll do it regardless of the law.

Huh? There certainly are people who desire to make them. The law is the only thing stopping them. You can’t deny that.

Whaa!?

Who? Do YOU desire to make an atomic bomb? I personally don’t know a single person who does. Or are you saying we should make blanket laws that affect millions of people because of the 5 dingbats who think building nukes in their basement is fun? Or mayyybe you’re saying only law abiding citizens build nukes since the law is all that’s stopping them?

It has nothing to do with:
1) Whether or not I can I make a small nuclear bomb. If legalized, there are plenty of companies that could fill this niche and produce small nuclear bombs for buyers.
2) Whether their is current observable demand for the product or not. Was there a demand for Facebook in 1983? Who knows since it wasn’t around. An aggressive company with a good marketing campaign could seed demand for suitcase nuclear bombs across the US. Hell, there may even be suitcase nuclear bomb collectors if legalized! Imagine owning ever smaller versions of these weapons of mass destruction in cool concept colors! Radio-active Green! Nuetronic Neon Yellow! You could probably get them shrunk down into building destroying iPod sizes once the Japanese started mass producing them. If you can’t envision urban yuppies proudly showing off their suitcase nuclear bomb as a conversation piece during a wine and cheese party, you have no imagination.
High capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets, folding stocks - there was no public demand for these prior to their marketing to the public.
You still haven’t answered the question: Why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment guarentee my right to bear nuclear arms if it guarentees high capacity magazines?
I should address the “if they do aspire to do it they will regardless of the law”. Actually, this is empirically false, as no individual has ever obtained the necessary source materials to construct one. The illegality AND the enforcement of the laws, has prevented a daranged maniac from setting off a nuke in an American city.
And yes, we have blanket laws on 300 million Americans because 5 sickos want to crush baby animals with their bare feet and film it so they can masterbate to it. I have not lost a night of sleep over that particular loss of my liberties.

It take alot of belief in a very sick, twisted society for you to think a massive market would exist for owning nukes just because they were legal. It's just not realistic. If rules are what stops people then why has half the country smoked pot? It's ILLEGAL, we should have access to it, right? Your scenarios are extreme and bear no comparison to people owning handguns.

And I don't understand that last part... No one has gotten the materials to make a nuke because it ILLEGAL, but you sited several examples where that's exactly what happened. Which is it?

36   tatupu70   2011 Jan 13, 2:57am  

NuttBoxer says

Ensuring personal freedom automatically guards public safety, the separation you’re making doesn’t exist. Our country was founded on the belief that all men had the right to be free, and not have their freedoms infringed upon. When Loughner shot those people he tried to take away their right to live. In a free society the rights of all must be respected. You can live your life how you want as long as you don’t attempt to take others rights away.
What you really refer to when you say guarding public safety is the government controlling our lives, because we need them to MAKE us safe. You believe in safety by denying freedom, I believe in safety by ensuring it.

No--the distinction exists. I guess you could call it "others rights" if you wish, but clearly one man's freedoms end when they infringe on the rights of society. The tricky part is deciding where that line is...

And that's my point. There IS a line somewhere so pretending that it's about taking away one's freedom or rights is silly. It's a way to cloud the issue and inflame people...

Like SoCal is saying--there are weapons that clearly should be illegal, so all the 2nd amendment stuff is garbage. The question is what should be legal vs. illegal.

NuttBoxer says

What you really refer to when you say guarding public safety is the government controlling our lives, because we need them to MAKE us safe. You believe in safety by denying freedom, I believe in safety by ensuring it.

No--actually that's not at all what I'm saying. Try again.

37   NuttBoxer   2011 Jan 13, 3:00am  

Troy says

But the sole, let me repeat that SOLE responsible entity for the senseless violence that killed six people is Jared Loughner. No one and nothing else, just Jared Loughner.
But when a muslim wanted to build a community center in lower manhattan . . . Palin & friends were attacking the ever-loving shit out of him.
Now that the radical right is being hoisted on its own eliminationist petard, out come the appeals to moderation and fairness.
Blow it out your ass.

You posted this because my beliefs represent the "radical right" correct? I think people should be able to build what they want on their property, and further that it would be somewhat fitting to build a Muslim temple at a false flag site used as reason to murder Arab children.

Try to pigeon hole that.

Better yet wake up to the fact that your caught up in a meaningless argument regarding two made up factions for the very purpose of accomplishing what you've just demonstrated. Fanaticism over bashing fellow Americans over the head instead of awareness that you're being robbed blind through taxes, mortgage fraud, and government regulations all implemented by the same people who made up your little "left/right" argument. It's rich vs poor, bankers vs citizens, government vs freedom, and we're all losing.

Blow that out your ass.

38   NuttBoxer   2011 Jan 13, 3:13am  

I understand Tatupu, you prefer the Minority Report world where the crime isn't the action, it's the thought(or is that 1984?). Possession is the crime for you, regardless of intentions. Simply owning a gun shows intent to kill. I prefer to judge people by what they've done, not what I "think" they might do.

This country wouldn't exist without the 2nd Amendment, it was made by the citizens to protect against the Constitution and government abuse. Hardly garbage.

39   tatupu70   2011 Jan 13, 3:16am  

NuttBoxer says

I understand Tatupu, you prefer the Minority Report world where the crime isn’t the action, it’s the thought(or is that 1984?). Possession is the crime for you, regardless of intentions. Simply owning a gun shows intent to kill. I prefer to judge people by what they’ve done, not what I “think” they might do.
This country wouldn’t exist without the 2nd Amendment, it was made by the citizens to protect against the Constitution and government abuse. Hardly garbage.

Wow--I didn't think it would be possible to completely misunderstand to that degree. So, your plan is not to actually address my points, but to make up what you wish I had said and then answer that? I think the term strawman applies here...

40   Huntington Moneyworth III, Esq   2011 Jan 13, 4:28am  

NuttBoxer says

And I don’t understand that last part… No one has gotten the materials to make a nuke because it ILLEGAL, but you sited several examples where that’s exactly what happened. Which is it?

You claim we live in some utopian society where everyone behaves if they are just given enough freedom. Sadly this isn't the case. Congress had to make a law banning "Crush" videos.

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/12/crush_bill_signed_120910.html

WASHINGTON – The Humane Society of the United States lauded President Obama for signing into law H.R. 5566, the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010. The statute immediately bans the creation and distribution of obscene animal torture videos that show the intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating and impaling of puppies, kittens and other live animals for the titillation of viewers. Championed by Reps. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., and Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., the legislation had overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress.

Three hundred million Americans lost their freedom to make "crush" videos. You oppose this loss of freedom? According to you, people act more responsibly when they have freedoms. So this loss of freedom will, according to you, result in the making of more "crush" videos. That is absolutely absurd.

You are correct. No one has made a suitcase nuke because it is illegal. But wait, you say "loss of freedom makes the illegal activity increase". Thus your own assertion is proven false by your own logic.

I argue that the same reasoning that makes suitcase nukes illegal should also apply to high capacity automatic rifle magazines. The Second Amendment does not provide for magazine clips, any more than it does suitcase nuclear weapons. If I cannot argue that the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a suitcase nuclear weapon, you cannot argue that the Second Amendment gives you the right to own high capactiy magazines.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions