Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
Bottom 
Previous Topic 
Next Topic
Register To PostTopic is Locked
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Webmaster
 
|
windowsrefund and bezerker are posting with the same IP.
They are banned and this topic is locked. Quote:
Posted on: 2013/6/26 4:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
I was just out for a walk and this thread popped into my head to chew on. The part I think I find most remarkable and depressing is the way the gun argument gets framed as an "innate right". It's a religious argument when you get down to it.
Many of us believe we are animals that think pretty good, or at least better than the other animals. But other people try to justify their "beliefs" with layers of "innate", "God given", "morality" etc, when all these are simply rationalizations for doing what we want to do, or stopping others from doing what they want. Many of us believe that all morality is man-made and subjective, a human cold cut means nothing but dinner to a cannibal. It will stop anyone cold from making the "innate rights" argument by studying the antebellum arguments justifying slavery. Respectable senators said things like "I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good?a positive good." and "Many in the South once believed that it was a moral and political evil; that folly and delusion are gone; we see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world." And keep in mind the same court that recently ditched the 1st half of the 2nd amendment as irrelevant, similarly approved of the institution of slavery too. I'm not saying you can't argue to have your gun with no restrictions, but arguing about "innate rights" vs societal privileges is inherently, pardon the expression, full of holes.
Posted on: 2013/6/26 3:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It's sad when you're losing an argument so badly that you have to invent another participant to echo your views.
The similarities between windowsrefund and bezerker are numerous. The stilted pseudo-intellectual vocabulary, the posting style of replying several times in a row. The gaps between posts by the two users are incredibly short... 14 minutes at most. Another gap is a mere 9 minutes, the next is only 8, and then it drops to 7 a short time later. I could go on but it's like shooting idiots in a barrel. (I make a jokey)
Posted on: 2013/6/26 2:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I realize this is over the line, and the webmaster will eventually delete this (and rightfully so), but I really hope at least a few people see this before it goes
Quote: windowsrefund wrote: You are a fucking moron.
Posted on: 2013/6/26 2:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Go take a cold shower and cool off...you obviously didn't get my sarcastic play off the title of this thread.
Posted on: 2013/6/26 1:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Her door was locked, you illiterate half-wit.
Posted on: 2013/6/26 1:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
 |
Quote:
In NJ, firearms are to be locked, unloaded and inaccessible if there are minors in the house. This is to prevent those senseless tragedies. In my home (and I can only speak for myself and my home and family), everyone in the house is trained to use the firearms that exist. This involves shotgun and rifle safety training from the NJDEP, and regular monthly trips to the range for pistol practice. One can keep loaded firearms discreetly in locations that are accessible but not obvious, and be available in case they are needed. One does not have to be a genius to be very creative in concealment. With proper training, knowledge, and resolve, vermin such as that one in the video can be dispatched with and we should be all the better as a society. LOL.
Posted on: 2013/6/26 0:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Really? Guns are supposed to be locked in a safe. How would she have gotten to her gun in time? Stupid argument.
Posted on: 2013/6/26 0:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Why the hell are you making excuses for this guy like you knew his intentions and knew what he was thinking? You think he panicked? Why didn't he just run the hell out of the house once he saw her there? This guy is a coward, and so are you for spouting your asinine gibberish! "The woman is a hero in my book, she did everything right - didn't resist or panic or place her child in danger." YOU ARE A COWARD!
Posted on: 2013/6/26 0:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
unlock doors ! if she had a gun !
What a load of crap - This ass-wipe came to burgle a house that he thought was empty and in panic beat a defenceless woman and terrified a child. The woman is a hero in my book, she did everything right - didn't resist or panic or place her child in danger. Society will always have dangerous people like this who will prey on others - I bet we find out, when caught he is a family man himself as he appears to be no skinny 'crack-head' and this is not drug or gang related. I have no doubt the cops will show little empathy for him when they catch him, as he showed zero empathy to this woman and mother. I also bet that this guy is know to police through domestic violence or something like road rage issues.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 23:46
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
If she had enough common sense to lock her doors, this could have been prevented.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 23:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That is the dumbest argument put forth, and just goes to show that you're only capable of jingoistic sound bites fed to you by the NRA. Next, you'll be co-opting God. I take back what I said about you and bezerker being the same person. Even bezerker was able to put forth semi-intelligent, if flawed, reasoning.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 21:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
"... but even more important, spell "Internet" as it should be. Notice the capitol "I" since we're referring to a proper noun."
I don't have a dog in your 2nd Amendment fight at present ... but I have to interject with a big peeve: If you're going to pompously correct someone's grammar/word form or usage on an internet message board (it's an adjective and properly lowercase there -- not the proper noun form, btw) -- you should really make sure your own verbal/word skills are in order. It's "capital" with an "a." "Capitol" with an "o" is, essentially, the building or the seat of a governmental body. It jut aggravates me. Later, gators.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 21:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You very clearly do not.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 21:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Someone got a little silly and associated our right to keep and bear arms with slavery. I'm too lazy to scroll and quote but I will tie the two concepts together in an effort to clear up any confusion.
If those slaves had arms, we probably wouldn't even be having this (exact) discussion. And that is the point of our 2nd Amendment.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 21:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Please try to avoid the silly insults but even more important, spell "Internet" as it should be. Notice the capitol "I" since we're referring to a proper noun. To your point, parts of this thread certainly do show that some people don't have all the facts. "Retarded" probably goes a bit far though. Quote:
Who told you that? Hitler? Mao? Maybe someone more local like Rahm Emanuel? http://www.policymic.com/articles/226 ... er-rates-are-skyrocketing Quote:
Nobody is against changing the Constitution so long as the changes result in greater protection of our rights. You're still confusing "rights" with "permissions" though.... It's a shame you don't know you have innate rights.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 20:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
In any event, the interpretation of the 2nd amendment to allow an individual to possess a firearm without restriction is a novel and revisionist interpretation of the amendment. It was widely acknowledged by both liberal and conservative judges and scholars that the amendment was most reasonably understood in the context of the states being allowed to maintain their own militias.
Of course, the Supreme Court has ruled as it has and any discussions need to take that context into account.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 20:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Yet we follow laws written as a result of those wars no? Tonkin Gulf resolution, war powers act, etc.... Those wars were all started on false pretenses and arguably worse results than slave owners. The end result is the basis behind those laws are claimed to still be valid even though the actual authority may be corrupt. Thus, even if slave owners did use the second amendment, or push for it, it is still just as valid. Though as mentioned it has been debated quite heavily and debunked in many ways as having any ties to slavery other than "some slave owners may have used it to their advantage". That's all.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 20:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Your non sequiturs are amusing. Wars are not laws. In fact, the legality of Vietnam has been called into question because war was never formally declared. As for Iraq, the Bush administration sought legitmacy for that war through an outright lie (weapons of mass destruction). 'Nuff said.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 20:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Fewer gun deaths but significantly higher assaults, violent crime, rapes, etc. England would like a word with you, same with Italy and most European countries. Switzerland however would like to disagree with you personally (As every household has a gun since all members must serve and be prepared.) Quote: 2. Plenty of areas of the Constitution have changed through interpretation over time. That was the whole intention of the system. Correct. None of these are changes to the Constitution. They are state laws violating said Constitution. Amendments can be made but this one never will since it will never gather the required votes. Quote: 3. The second amendment as written was for the people -- the states -- to form militias independent of a national army. Only in recent times have activist judges amended the Constitution through poor interpretation to invent an individual right. This has indeed been a grey area of interpretation for awhile. It was first visited in 1939 in the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that it is NOT tied to the militia, however it was ruled ambiguously. Up until 1939, owning a firearm was practically a necessity of life even in modern metropolis cities of the time so it's no surprise this wasn't a question. However, it was attacked again later on and in 2008 revisted in the supreme court again. They clarified that indeed, as stated in 1939, there is no tie to militia. Quote: 4. I don't expect a lot of the people on this thread to understand any of this because of the Dunning?Kruger effect. A bit unfair to say no? That same bias could be applied to your arguments as well? That's just name calling.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 20:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Not the same person, but thank you? I'm not denying at all the slave ownership of the founding fathers. Every ruling party had slaves back then from America all the way to Britain to the rest of Europe.... I am however denying the idea that it was passed to keep slaves in check. While, I am very sure many gun owners used it for that purpose, there are just as many valid arguments (http://www.theroot.com/views/2nd-amen ... passed-protect-slavery-no) against why it was not the basis of the second amendment. Of course, a slave owner would want a firearm to defend against any form of uprising. Once again, it simplifies down to "to be used in defense". I fail to see how just because some slave owners lobbied for the second amendment it makes it any less relevant for defense? We're currently following all sorts of laws written by people who have done despicable things, or were involved in them. (See all of Vietnam, Iraq, children dead in all those countries, etc.) Why? The basis of those laws is still just as sound.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 20:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This entire thread exemplifies the theory that people on the internet are retarded.
1. Nations with tighter restrictions on guns have fewer gun deaths by factors so great it should be a crime to even defend "rights" to guns. 2. Plenty of areas of the Constitution have changed through interpretation over time. That was the whole intention of the system. 3. The second amendment as written was for the people -- the states -- to form militias independent of a national army. Only in recent times have activist judges amended the Constitution through poor interpretation to invent an individual right. 4. I don't expect a lot of the people on this thread to understand any of this because of the Dunning?Kruger effect.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Bezerker and windowsrefund (why do I think you're one and the same person?). You can live in denial and whitewash it all you want. The historical record is there, and constitutional law scholars back this. It's a disgusting and shameful part of U.S. history. The founding fathers were not infallible, and not all that different from politicians today. They cut unsavory deals and on the issue of slavery, they kicked the can down the road.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
You can if you want to, but the period is lengthy, certain requirements must be met (some of which are unnecessary to safety) and often times there is a "rejection" built into the system to weed out the casuals.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
What? This is nonsense. The Second Amendment was written because it was a well acknowledged fact that defense is a natural born right of all peoples. The NRA nonsense (I am a member for years.) is that it has anything at all to do with hunting etc. Simply put, it exists solely because humans have a right to defend themselves and that includes from other humans. It is a natural born right of all living creatures on this planet, both animal and plant. I will not get into the other aspects (tyranny etc) because that has nothing to do with this, but in this case, it strictly applies to being used by regular people.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
This is probably the most outlandish thing I've heard in the past 29 days. Perhaps even up to 46
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Funny, my Uncle (RIP), my brother a lot of friends all have/had firearms in their homes. They had few problems getting these firearms. In fact I have never met a single person who could not purchase a gun in NJ who wanted to.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You either studied American history, or you just drank the NRA kool-aid. The second amendment exists because it was part of a deal to appease the southern states. They wanted to keep slavery, and to keep slaves in line, slave owners needed an armed militia.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Long time lurker, first time poster here...
Firstly, nobody is saying she should have had her gun on her person at all times. Most people who own firearms keep them in secure locations. Now, this was a brutal attack. There's nothing indicating that she would have been able to defend herself had she had a gun in a secure location. There's nothing saying she could made it to the secure location to get her firearm. However, she would have had a chance to try. The big question with this crime in the gun control debate is whether or not she should have had that CHOICE to protect herself. As of now, Jersey and other states are all passing laws making it more difficult for home owners to protect themselves. That should ALWAYS be viewed as suspect. In states where gun control is less strict, firearms are also more of the norm. The less restriction, the higher chance this woman may have had something to protect herself. Again, no guarantees merely a chance. This woman was not killed, but she was beaten, and this could have easily degraded into not only herself being raped but her entire family of children being forced to go through those things as well. She could have been killed, tortured, you name it. The police were not around, nor were they able to be called in time if they were. So we have that, the potential rape, sodomization, and torture/deaths of this mother and her children being compared to accidental gun fatalities or injuries. Those are the justifications being used against allowing this woman the CHOICE to have protection. - "She could accidentally leave it out and her child could shoot himself or others." Last I checked there are plenty of laws already on the books enforcing this. Child endangerment, Neglect, and a slew of firearms specific laws relating to proper handling of a weapon. (Even unloaded.) - "Relaxed gun laws would have made it more likely that the intruder be armed as well." Not necessarily. Criminals do know the limits of their crimes and the repercussions and constantly play a risk/reward game. Bringing a weapon pretty much guarantees they will face significantly worse charges and go to jail for far worse. Assault will get you less than an attempted robbery with a weapon. Also, a much lighter security prison. No intelligent criminal will use a legally obtained firearm in a crime. They will go down to Newark, or East New York, and purchase one on the streets under the table that was stolen from some legal owners home. - "Some of us don't feel that small chance she "could" have defended herself outweighs the extensively documented far increased odds that someone in her family would die by gunshot, in cases like this often by her own gun after someone far more used to violence has disarmed her. " How is what you feel relevant to the defense and protection of another family? I don't have the right to demand your children don't have televisions in your home do I? They can fall and break and the gasses / chemicals inside can harm their kid and family. The steak knife set a professional cook has can easily injure and harm children too. Yet, I don't have any right to demand you put those down.... So why do you have the right to feel that way? It is not your family, it is hers (or his, or whomevers). I repeat my earlier concern that there are plenty of laws on the books already in all areas to mitigate those risks. Enforce them, or perhaps make them more effective. It's tragic this woman faced this, but this could have been far worse and the WORST thing to do is sit there going "This guy will be caught by the police." ... Woopdie do, a woman still potentially almost had her life ruined. She was literally at the mercy of another human being trying to harm her. No animal in the entire animal kingdom will actively work to prevent another of its kind from defending itself when attacked. Why are we the only species that seems to think that humans defending themselves is risky and dangerous, but relying on OTHER humans to defend/capture people is not any less risky? It's self castration as a collective whole.
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: If she were armed with a firearm, this could have been prevented.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Yes, and NJ has no laws on the books saying she can't have a firearm in her home. I'm glad we both agree this woman should have had a chance to defend herself, her family, and her property with a loaded firearm. Of course, your claim that NJ has no laws preventing her from doing that is totally flawed. If you'd like, we can sit down over coffee and I can show you exactly how difficult (and sometimes impossible) NJ makes it for law-abiding citizens to lay a claim to this innate right. How about the SIP diner?
Posted on: 2013/6/25 19:02
|
|||
|
||||
Register To PostTopic is Locked