Armed carjacker meets armed citizen

[DWC]

The more there are of us the less there will be of them - one way or another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=kQ2IzMaqZTA

[NoOneMan]

1. Them? Us?

We are them. We are just having a better day/week/life at the moment.

[Eleanors38]

3. If someone is threatening me with deadly violence, he/she is "them." nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Uh... Speak for yourself n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. No amount of "having a bad day" would turn me into a carjacker.

There are lines which an ethical person, no matter how desperate, will not cross. Armed robbery/assault is way, way over on the other side of that line, and anyone committing such an act is a "them."

[NoOneMan]

19. Well thats you

I'd do whatever I'd have to do to put food on the table for my family. If things got that shitty, I'd prefer not to starve or watch my children starve. Mind you, I'd have no intention of taking another's life to do it--and for all we know, the dead guy in the video may not have either which may explain why he is the dead one.

People who can't admit, understand or acknowledge the levels of depravity they would descend to in order to protect the ones they love frankly disturb me. And I'm not making excuses for that guy who might of been just trying to get a fix, but rather simply pointing out there are plenty of reasons for upstanding citizens to "cross those lines" that crumble when the neglected social contract lies in ruin. In the end, we are all just humans trying to survive and make it work--some have better tools to do so and theyll instead rob you with a fountain pen.

[Lizzie Poppet]

31. The disturbance is mutual.

Personally, people who would descend to the level of perpetrating a violent crime against an innocent person, regardless of circumstances, disturb me.

Don't get me wrong: I fully acknowledge just how horribly and completely the social contact has been abrogated. But for me, it's not the social contract or even the threat of punishment that stops me from committing violent acts for any other reason that immediate self defense (or the immediate defense of others, actually...an aspect of my character that frankly surprises me, as I'm anything but a "people person&quot . It's because there are acts I would rather die than commit.

That said, I've never actually been in circumstances that dire. Perhaps things would change if I were. I don't think anyone truly knows until they face such a situation, just like you never know how you'll react to deadly danger until it happens.

[NoOneMan]

33. "there are acts I would rather die than commit"

Sure, but property theft really isn't one of them--not by a long shot. Frankly, I do not even know if I would kill someone to defend some of my property (as the man in the video did, though it can be argued that he did not know if it was only his property at stake).

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. Agreed. But the scenario in question is a lot more than that.

Armed robbery intrinsically implies the threat of deadly force, and the presence of at least one weapon means that the potential for the situation to result in bloodshed is exponentially higher, despite the intentions of the robber. Anyone committing such an act has placed the victim in the position of (very reasonably) assuming that their life is in danger.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Stories are regularly posted here of cooperative victims who were killed anyway.

When the robber produces a weapon it isn't just an academic argument that your life is in danger. It is a stark reality.

[Travis_0004]

55. Such stupid excuses.

If he was trying to feed his family then I wouldn't really be upset if he was caught stealing some food from a grocery store. He should be arrested, but if somebody shot him, that would be wrong.

In this situation such as these, I have no problem with the car owners actions. He defended himself, and I'm glad he wasn't hurt.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Yes, you are defending the robber.

You are hunting for excuses for him. Robbing to feed his family? Haven't you heard of WIC, and various other government aid programs?

[jeepnstein]

60. Once you cross that line...

you are accepting the fact that you might not live to tell the tale. Choosing to engage in violent criminal behavior has consequences. Myself, no matter how desperate the conditions I would choose to err on the side of staying alive and in the game instead of engaging in a violent felony. The car jacker chose poorly.

I have zero patience with violent criminals. Sure, I can display a bit of empathy towards them at times but that does not mean I don't hold them accountable for their actions. The dead guy probably had no intention of killing anyone, they rarely do. Most criminals avoid even the threat of violence. But the fact remains this guy chose to commit a violent crime and died in the process.

[ileus]

2. No reason to be a willing victim these days...

Thanks to a progressive 2A movement.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Puhleez! "Progressive 2A movement"

There was never a reason to be a "willing victim". Has nothing to do with 2A or being progressive. You do realize that you lose credibility with such ridiculous statements?

[gejohnston]

72. it is accurate

it simply means change the status quo and move forward from where we are now. Of course, everything works in cycles so it is often a case of going so far east, you land up west. For example, if the US navy allowed beards, is it progressive or regressive? Relative to now, it is progressive. If you move the marker to the 1970s, it is regressive. If you move the marker back to the 19th century, letting guys wearing ear rings on ships would be regressive.
Closer to the subject at hand, the Castle Doctrine dates back to English common law, but SYG does not. Then, one was expected to "retreat to the wall". Then, SYG entered US common law during the Progressive era, supported by progressive judges like Oliver W. Holmes. So, SYG is progressive. It can't be described as regressive because it didn't exist before a period of DTR that I can find. Relative to the past 80 plus years, liberalizing CC laws is progressive. Granted, many people who describe themselves as "progressive" don't like it.
It was also progressive thinkers and writers during the Enlightenment that came to the conclusion that disarming the civilian population did not reduce crime.
Am I saying "duty (duty to whom, the Crown?) to retreat" regressive? Yes. Much of "civilized Europe" is regressive and not so civilized. For example, Italy is one of the few countries that allow trap and skeet with live birds, their misogyny and approach to domestic violence is less enlightened than us in the 1950s.

Another example is how the USAF decided to do small arms and deployment skills similar to the army during basic training from the Micky Mouse bullshit that existed before. Airman Magazine incorrectly called it "retro" when it in fact was not, since it was breaking away from Curt LeMay's Cold War paradigm of "nuke by remote control" to sending conventional forces to make shift bases in the theater.

[CokeMachine]

77. You are amazing!!

Where to you get all of that information? Kudos

[DWC]

81. 2 thumbs up !!! n/t

[Starboard Tack]

83. You can't be serious.

Progressivism is not about chronology. It is a political philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

[gejohnston]

84. it is a political philosophy

based on change.

Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action.

Conservatives resist change. So, maintaining IL's CCW ban would be conservative, because it is resisting change.
explanations and examples still stand.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Illinois CCW has nothing to do with what I was referring to

nor do I need a lesson on what is conservative and what is progressive.

My response was to Ileus in post 2, where he made the following inane statement

"No reason to be a willing victim these days...
Thanks to a progressive 2A movement."

Firstly, he is making the outrageous statement that there are "willing victims", which is total bullshit.
Secondly, he is inferring that the only way not to be a "willing victim" is by carrying a fucking gun everywhere you go. That is insulting to each and every person who chooses not to carry, including you and me.
Thirdly, he asserts that there is such a thing as a "progressive 2A movement", which is pure NRA propaganda.

[gejohnston]

88. can you show me where the NRA used the term?

Thirdly, he asserts that there is such a thing as a "progressive 2A movement", which is pure NRA propaganda

I'm not on their mailing list. I'll leave the other two to you and Ileus.

[Starboard Tack]

89. Using the term is not the point, but what the term implies...

which is the proliferation of guns being carried in public for no other reason than it is, currently at least, a constitutional right.
What the hell is progressive about exercising a right that was written 230 years ago and made sense at that time. And might still make sense if the concept of a militia was the same today and if SCOTUS had not totally distorted the original intent.

[gejohnston]

90. It has to do with the natural right of self defense

and is the best means of doing so. Of course that is Deist speak for god given right.
Yes that includes less than lethal (to use the more accurate military term) such as pepper spray, but that is often illegal in places like DC and Chicago. It has been a constitutional right for 230 years.

What is progressive by not exercising any constitutional right? Or any civil liberty? I look at it as who has the strongest, factual, and logical argument. Gun control advocates lose on all three of those.

[Starboard Tack]

91. I take no issue with the natural right of self defense.

I do take issue with the need to codify it and interpret that right into carrying weapons, which are specifically designed to kill.
There are many laws I disagree with, including the illegal carrying of pepper spray and other truly defensive weapons.
The term "gun control advocates" is way too broad as to be virtually meaningless. A tiny minority of people want to ban ownership, while a vast majority want to restrict both ownership and use. My issue is mainly with use and the types of weapons in the marketplace, along with laws of accountability.
There is a fine line between government oppression of individual freedoms and public safety. That is the line which must be discussed if we are to progress. Listening to extremists on either side is not progressive. Those who want to ban the ownership of all firearms are as delusional as those who strap on a gun every time they leave the house.

[gejohnston]

92. ultimately,

as gun restrictions fail to produce the desired results, more restrictions will be sought. Those will also fail to get the desired results, which will eventually be complete bans. That has been the case historically, see California and New York. Australia is another example. Now that gun ownership is higher, at least in NSW, than before NFA was passed, the gun prohibitionists are freaking out. Now the push is against pistols calling them "loaded small submachine guns in glove boxes." Never mind that handgun ownership is very small, especially in NSW, I doubt you can carry it loaded in your glove box. Last I checked, couldn't even do that in Wyoming. Looking at history is a good way of predicting the future. Nothing paranoid about it.

There are some cases where it is prudent to "strap on" when leaving the house. Being openly gay or have an Arabic surname in a Skinhead infested shit hole comes to mind. Being a woman who works the late shift in an oil field town is another. My current situation, not so much since inconvenience outweighs the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Starboard Tack]

95. I have little knowledge or interest in Australian gun laws

That would probably change if and when I move there.
Regarding your last paragraph, I agree 100%. There are times and places where it might be prudent for those who feel vulnerable to strap on gun, especially if they have no other options for avoiding those situations. My issue is not with those who truly feel vulnerable, but rather with those who have developed a habit of carrying, to the degree that they feel "naked" without their gun. I see this kind of helplessness displayed by those who forget their cellphones, or run out of cigarettes, or whatever other substance or gadget they have become dependent on.

[alabama_for_obama]

98. How is pepper spray a "truly defensive weapon"

Look at how the cops use it offensively to try to subdue and cow protestors. There is not such thing as a "truly defensive weapon", all of them can be used as readily for aggressive purposes as well as rightful defensive purposes. It is all a matter of intent and desire of the possessor of said weapons.

[Starboard Tack]

101. Pepper spray is designed and marketed as a defensive weapon.

Of course, anything can be used as a weapon if intent is there. A gun, however, is specifically designed for killing, both efficiently and quickly. It is a weapon of last resort, or should be, not something that should be worn routinely like a pair of shoes.
There are situations in life when it behooves one to be armed. Those situations are few and far between. Fortunately, most who feel the need to carry a gun are so concerned for their personal safety that they avoid such situations, which is also what the rest of us tend to do. I think the difference is that those who carry all the time feel truly insecure when unarmed, in the same way that many feel insecure if they forget or lose their cellphone, or their TV breaks down. I'm not saying they live in constant fear, but one can't help wonder about their take on reality.

[gejohnston]

107. small pistols like the Ruger LPC

or the Baby Browning, in an era of European toters, are also designed and marketed as defensive weapons.
Most people have something they feel naked without. What is your rabbits foot?

[Starboard Tack]

109. Marketed maybe, but still designed to kill.

Let's not be naive. They were used by the French resistance fighters and carried by airmen downed behind enemy lines.
My "rabbit's feet" would be a pair of pants, sunglasses, sunscreen and a hat.
I usually carry a cellphone, but don't feel naked without it. Same with a folding knife.

[oneshooter]

110. French Resistance fighters generally carried whatever they could get.

Everything from captured p-38's and Luger's to various Browning designs. We supplied them with 1 million "liberator" pistols.

US airmen carried the 38cal revolvers built by S&W and Colt. English airmen used the Enfield revolvers in 38-200.

[DWC]

85. To quote MLK...

•Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
-- Strength to Love (1963)

I honestly hope you will consider his words.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

87. I'm quite familiar with the quote, and the man.

If you want to discuss a point, feel free. Otherwise, I suggest you study MLK's homilies before serving them to others.

"It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. And the alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation, and our earthly habitat would be transformed into an inferno that even the mind of Dante could not imagine."

--Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution

[DWC]

93. I have taken your advice

and studied the life, speeches, statements, and letters of MLK as a man of my era to be emulated.
He believed in equality, freedom, and justice for all.
He believed every person was responsible for their individual choices and conduct.
He believed adamantly in the responsibility of self defense.
He was a Christian, ordained minister of God.
He believed in the unalienable, God Given rights of all people including the right to bear arms.

I believe the quote I chose above was more than fitting.

Semper Fi,

[alabama_for_obama]

99. Advocating against nukes and US millitary aggression

Is a far cry from being against the right of individuals to defend themselves from aggressors. Nonviolent mass protest in public is by no means antithetical to an individuals right to defend themselves when going about their daily business.

[Starboard Tack]

100. Who said it was?

One's right to defend oneself is a far cry from indiscriminately carrying a loaded gun in public, just because it may be legal to do so.

[DWC]

103. Actually, it is not

"a far cry from indiscriminately carrying a loaded gun in public" I have the right to immediate, unrestricted access to the tools I deem necessary to defend myself where ever I am. The only possible exception to that is in a location such as a courtroom where professional, armed protection is provided.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

108. I see it's all about what YOU deem necessary and screw everyone else.

How about those of us who deem it necessary to navigate the public arena without the risk of encountering some freak who deems it necessary to defend himself with a gun?
It's not all about you, no matter what you think. I suggest you avoid the National Park system.
It doesn't say much for your experience in the USMC if the only way you know how to defend yourself in the civilian world is by carrying a gun. I know many former marines and not one would ever think of routinely carrying in the civilian world.

[DWC]

111. Here is a reality flash for you

My self defense IS all about me. Your self defense IS all about you. It's called individual rights and individual responsibility. We have those things in a free society.

Being prepared and capable to defend yourself and those in your charge is advocated by Jesus Christ, Gandi, MLK, our founding fathers, and my wife. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and every other destructive leader in history opposed it.

As for me, I am sticking with my wife's advice.

Semper Fi,

[Starboard Tack]

112. I see, it is all about YOU

but you're sticking with your WIFE's advice.
One's universal, natural right to self defense has nothing to do with carrying a fucking gun around.
One's decision to indiscriminately carry is not a sign of a free society, but a failed society.
Justifying your decision to carry by passing it off on your WIFE, Ghandi, MLK and Jesus is beyond hilarious. Really sounds like you are exercising your rights as an INDIVIDUAl.

[DWC]

113. Yup! Self Defense is all about SELF - see#85 - again n/t

[Starboard Tack]

114. You got that right!

And thinking you need to carry a gun everywhere in order to defend yourself against imaginary threats is grandiosity. Incredible how far some will go to justify their bizarre behavior.

[rdharma]

4. So what does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

[rdharma]

6. Hey, DWC! Where did this "carjacking" take place?

Doesn't appear to be in the USA!

[gejohnston]

7. Venezuela

What's your point?

[rdharma]

8. What's my point? I think you got my point already!

[DWC]

9. Venezuela

An honest person was violently attacked by an armed perpetrator and successfully defended himself.

So what's your point?

Semper Fi,

[rdharma]

10. My point is........ that isn't the US!

Why did you try to mask that?

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. There was nothing masked in the OP. So what *was* your point?

Bong...and bong again

[rdharma]

12. Dishonest posting caught!

Y'all must just hate that!

[Decoy of Fenris]

13. Honest post was honest; no lies or misdirection.

On first Watching. (Derp), I knew it was from out of country. Didn't you?

[rdharma]

14. Oh, all 'the usual suspects"!

I love this!

[Decoy of Fenris]

15. Good to see you again too, kid. :P n/t

[rdharma]

18. Who do you think you're kidding?

Fenris, really? Can't you find a screen name that isn't quite as revealing?

[Decoy of Fenris]

22. Actually, the name comes from a hobby of mine.

It's a tabletop wargame called Warhammer 40,000, where I play an army known as Space Wolves, based loosely off of Nordic culture. Fenris is the planet the Wolves are based on, while D'koi is the company name of my army. I adapted D'koi to Decoy back in about 2003, to avoid tournament mis-readings, and have been Decoy of Fenris (Or some other variation of Decoy) in most games that I play.

I can't say what you're reading into, but I'm willing to bet that wasn't the origin story you were expecting.

[rdharma]

24. Those Nordic characters are quite popular among white supremacists

Did you know that?

I bet you did!

[Decoy of Fenris]

25. True, but the Wolves of Fenris are one of the most humanitarian Chapters.

When other Marine Chapters want to purge a world for heresy, often, it's only the Wolves that stand in the way for the sake of all humanity as a whole. Well, them and the Ultramarines, but no one loves the smurfs.

[rdharma]

29. You're just exposing yourself more.

Not that you need to. Because it's pretty obvious!

[Decoy of Fenris]

30. You're right. I've got nothing to hide, so I don't hide anything. :)

Although seriously, you're reading too much into it. Not everyone/thing has hidden motives; I picked the Space Wolves when I was fourteen because they had beards and a good color scheme, and I like dogs. Nothing more to it than that. Their backstory is just an added perk.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Pretty clear you've never played WarHammer 40k.

You've embarrassed yourself, and you owe him an apology for that smear by association bullshit you attempted to pull.

[Straw Man]

73. Excuse me?

Those Nordic characters are quite popular among white supremacists

Did you know that?

As a person of Nordic descent, I don't appreciate your attempt to link my entire ethnicity and cultural heritage to racism and neo-Naziism.

Bigoted is as bigoted does. I'm just sayin' ...

[premium]

79. I very rarely support blocking from groups,

but with a statement like that, I would support a blocking of him by krispos42 100%, bigoted crap like that doesn't belong here or on DU at all.

[CokeMachine]

66. Who do you think you are kidding??

I also thought bongbong was funny until his racist rants got him banhammered? What's your obsession with screen names. Where did your name come from? Care to share?

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. And that matters precisely how?

This should be good...

[rdharma]

20. And they all come running when summoned!

[Decoy of Fenris]

23. It's probably because it's quittin' time.

Everyone's getting out of work, has eaten, and are now engaging in leisure activities. Your presence here is, I'd wager, minimal at best in relation to how they spend their time.

[rdharma]

27. Oh, I'd wager you're wrong!

[Decoy of Fenris]

28. Given that my profession deals with nothing -but- wagers, I'd take those odds. :P n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. And *I'd* wager you used to be known here as bongbong...

[CokeMachine]

67. What are the odds??

He doesn't even do a very good job of trying to hide it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. Ah, so you admit you're only posting to get a reaction out of people.

That would generally be described as "trolling."

Been nice knowing you, and I eagerly await seeing the name you select for your next sockpuppet.

[CokeMachine]

48. I'm betting Scully or Capt. Kirk -- he/she is just trolling. May I just add bongbong, bongbong.

Is there a smiley for that? This might be close

For some reason it does remind me of a PPR'd poster. I do think (I may be wrong btw) but it was for racist shit?? Again, I could be wrong, maybe!!!!

[Renew Deal]

76. How was it "masked?"

[NoOneMan]

21. How do we know he was an honest person?

How did you get that from the video? Was it captioned?

[rdharma]

26. He added his own comments to fit his message. nt

[CokeMachine]

49. Does that shoe fit???

[DWC]

94. Thank You for catching that

I stated as fact something that I actually assumed. I have no idea about the morals, ethics, or character of the intended victim in this carjacking.

I do know that the intended victim was not conducting himself in an aggressive or violent manner when attacked by the armed perpetrator.

I do know that the intended victim was equipped, prepared to, and successfully defended himself against the armed perpetrator.

I do know that, if I am ever attacked, I will also be equipped, prepared to, and (hopefully) successfully defend myself.

How about you?

Semper Fi,

[NoOneMan]

97. Yeah, context is everything

Our brains fill in the details to fit our preconceived notions. For all we know, the "carjacker" was just a teenager trying to raise money to feed his starving, sick little brother after the "upright, honest citizen" raped and killed the boys' mother, cutting them off from income and forcing them into starvation. In an instant, these victimized boys saw a chance to make money and get even against the perpetrator and criminal, who was stopping by a storage unit to check on other kidnapped women. Unfortunately, this bad man was armed because he was on his way to a bank robbery, to subsidize his practice of giving out heroin samples to children.

But filling in *those* details wouldn't really help out your narrative. So lets just construct the friendliest reality to what you are ultimately trying to say.

[Starboard Tack]

102. Oh boy! Looks like you got busted.

You really had to go all the way to Venezuela? That is truly funny. Nice one DWC!

[Loudly]

35. Um, genius? The attacker had a gun.

Access to a gun and ammo started the shit.

[gejohnston]

36. but the country has stricter laws than UK

and Australia. Handguns are banned, as are all rifles over .22lr. Shotguns were allowed. That was before the complete ban last year.

[Loudly]

37. So how is the crusade against child pornography going?

Anywhere for the dedicated consumer of CP to hide?

No?

So why go easier on guns and ammo?

[gejohnston]

38. the two are not remotely similar

please........................

[Loudly]

39. I am here to tell you they are.

Undeniably.

Why would you purport to dignify your pet cause over the reviled one?

No basis to do so.

None.

Guns actually kill children and not just exploit them for someone's pleasure.

[gejohnston]

40. a better analogy would be a gun is the same as the camera

both are machines, no one is harmed in their manufacture or possession per se. Both can be used for evil.
Child porn, on the other hand, people are harmed in its manufacture, perhaps more so than being killed with a gun. I had a teacher that once said that murdering a mind or spirit is worse than physically killing someone.

[Loudly]

41. I think we've debated the harm of the images alone.

That is why the images alone are regarded as contraband.

No camera or actual act of photography need be involved.

If you're found in possession of images, you're going away, yes?

Why?

Because of the claimed re-victimization of the original subject.

But also because of the potential harm from grooming new victims by showing them the images.

Potential harm from the images is the basis for lifelong incarceration.

So guns and ammo which actually kill and permanently injure children are indulged why?

The basis for treating one as abhorrent and intolerable and treating the other as nonetheless wholesome?

There can be no basis in reason.

[gejohnston]

42. because guns have other uses, including saving lives

from predatory attacks and gain food. Guns and ammo are used in Olympic sports, pornographic images are not.
Your argument is free of reason or logic.

[Loudly]

43. That's like saying CP has artistic merit.

Is CP protected by the First Amendment?

No? Why not?

Somebody's intolerable offensive content isn't someone else's protected expression and appreciation of beauty?

No? Why not?

You're attempting to carve out your particular harmful kink from the condemned one.

And you have no rational basis for doing so except to claim that someone thinks yours is a sport?

How ridiculous.

[gejohnston]

44. they didn't teach critical thinking

or logic where you went to school did they?

[Loudly]

45. That's what they call ad hominem.

I know that much.

You have thrown in the towel, and I don't blame you.

You have devoted your life to defending an indefensible position.

Clearly, a wasted life.

[gejohnston]

46. no, it just occured to me why

you compare apples and oranges. It is hard to have a civil conversation with someone who doesn't grasp basic logic. Indefensible? May I suggest you read more of the Enlightenment era writers.

Educating the misinformed is never wasted, even if I open just one mind.

[Loudly]

47. Slave masters appealed to logic as well. For the preservation of their noble institution.

Their assumptions were as valid to them as yours are to you.

[gejohnston]

51. no, they appealed to fear and emotion

not logic. There was nothing noble about profiting from the unpaid labor of others.

[CokeMachine]

52. Good God you are good!!

If you were pro-RKBA you'd have been PPR'd before your newest sock dried. Note to jurors -- check out the banned poster SharesUnited and tell me this isn't the same poster.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. A matter of credibility, shares- 'well-intentioned' deception is still deception.

If we cannot believe you as to your identity, why should we believe you on other matters?

[DonP]

96. His consistent references to child porn are really getting creepy

He keeps going back to that as both Shares United and Loudly.

I used to debate him on why it's an inappropriate comparison, now it just totally creeps me out. I can't even read his posts when he goes off on that.

Maybe it's just me?

[CokeMachine]

68. Come on man mellow out!

I was just SHARE(ing) information. I'm sorry your pal SHAREsunited was PPR'd. At least he lives on in your posts/attitude. Speaking of ad hominem attacks "cowardly little gnat" "Begone insect". You are one funny dude -- bless your heart and please give shares my best.

Have a great day.

[Bazinga]

70. GE addressed the inconsistencies of your analogy in post 40.

And even if you believe his response was inadequate, others have also commented to this effect, namely LizziePoppet and me.

Would you care to address the merits of either of our arguments? Our would you rather continue to fling mud while claiming to be the victim?

[Straw Man]

74. You've been banned for this sort of thing before, Shares.

You cowardly little gnat. Address the merits.

You can't. I understand.

Begone insect.

One might think you'd learned your lesson, but one would probably be wrong.

[CokeMachine]

78. That is the only thing he Shares anymore.

Him calling me names is a compliment. So far we've got Shares United, BongBong and at least one other (JTO -- two possibilities here) PPR'd returnees.

They are cute but they are what they are!!

Take Care

[Bazinga]

56. still not quite right on the analogy.

CP images indicate harm explicitly. Camera does not.

Dead body indicates harm explicitly. Gun does not.

Therefore, the possession or creation of both CP and dead bodies constitutes heinous crime. Possession of the instruments whose misuse can lead to those things is not a crime. The analogy is more consistent if instruments are compared to instruments, and
implementations to implementations.

Also, beware claiming victory on an internet discussion board. It usually means you've lost.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. Actually, it's a ludicrous analogy and an obvious appeal-to-emotion fallacy.

While the flaws with that analogy are legion, let's just go with the obvious category error: CP is an action, a gun is an object. One can equate various actions committed with firearms, but the action is not the object (and such an analogy actually bolsters the pro-gun argument...).

Moreover, while guns do indeed kill children, and killing is worse than exploiting (and is worse than the actual primary objection to CP, which is the profound psychological damage), guns do so in extremely small numbers in relation to the total number of guns. CP, on the other hand, seriously harms the child every single time.

Consider spending less time on unsupported didacticism ("Undeniably," "No basis to do so," "None&quot and more on crafting a sound, non-fallacious argument...

[CokeMachine]

50. I don't know -- please reveal your sources/websites. You seem to have an interest in CP and

believe you know a lot about it (I'm willing to bet you can sharesunited it with us).

[Loudly]

54. Looks like you're trying to smear me with your own feces Jack.

I'm not the one trying to justify a world in which bullets smash into the flesh and bone of children.

You are.

You claim it's some kind of freedom or Constitutional Right to possess that sort of capability for whimsical destruction.

I'm just here to point out that photographic exploitation is dealt with much more harshly than your particular perversion.

So Constitutional arguments kind of fall by the wayside in the presence of your brand of intellectual dishonesty, don't they.

[jimmy the one]

61. well said concisely, Loudly

loudly: I'm not the one trying to justify a world in which bullets smash into the flesh and bone of children. You are.
You claim it's some kind of freedom or Constitutional Right to possess that sort of capability for whimsical destruction.
I'm just here to point out that photographic exploitation is dealt with much more harshly than your particular perversion.
So Constitutional arguments kind of fall by the wayside in the presence of your brand of intellectual dishonesty, don't they.

Well said, 'joke machines' are just that; toss in more regulations on production & use of teddy bears, too.
.. The alleged 'constitutional right' can be laid at the feet of the bush administration which emboldened & enabled the current subversion of 2ndA to come about.

[CokeMachine]

69. Look who's here

It's the ONE!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. We are just calling Pat Robertson-style moralizing as we see it.

For that matter, as much as I despise him Preacher Pat at least isn't pretending to be someone
else when he sharesunited *his* self-righteous blather with the world...

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Also, one whose identity is seriously in doubt is hardly in a position to claim moral authority,
no matter how loudly and repeatedly they sharesunited it here.

[Straw Man]

75. I must say, Shares, ...

Looks like you're trying to smear me with your own feces Jack.

I'm not the one trying to justify a world in which bullets smash into the flesh and bone of children.

... you go rogue pretty quickly, don't you.

This should come as no surprise, since it has been told to you many times in your multiple incarnations, but it's against the law to shoot children. The right to own a firearm has no more to do with that particular proscription than the right to own a camera has to do with the proscriptions against child pornography.

[DWC]

82. Got my first camera..

when I was 11. got my first gun when I was 8. I have "pushed the button" on both types of tools thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times

I have used cameras and firearms as well as many other types of tools for my pleasure and in my work.

In all of those years (more than a half century) and all of those "clicks" I have never taken a picture that even comes close to CP or fired a round that injured a human being.

I would never even consider CP and will only consider using a firearm against a human being to stop a violent attack.

My personal morals and ethics, not "laws", are the basis for my decisions.

Having tools is my right. How I use them is my responsibility.

Semper Fi,

[premium]

104. Um, genius,

what started it was the thug, not because he had a gun, because he thought he had an easy mark.
Guess the mark wasn't so easy after all, was he.

[CokeMachine]

105. He's just Sharesing hit thoughts!!

Have a great day!!

[premium]

106. Thank you,

you have a great day also, were actually having a mild day today, only supposed to get to 93 degrees.