Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries
So let me get this straight.
A. The right to life is the most fundamental human right.
B. The right to self-defense follows from that.
C. The right to possess the means to self-defense follows from that.
How do you accomplish C, without taking away somebody else's A?
Not sure I follow.
|
How do you not understand something simple?
You forfeit your right to life when you seek to offensively and physically harm/kill/violate others.
It has been established you have a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You do not have a right to offensively harm another.
If you do, expect B to happen with C.
If you want to rape, torture, kill, steal, kidnap, B and C
should most likely happen.
Due process however, was established more towards accusations in an attempt to prevent folks from gathering their pitch forks like the Salem witch trials, or crimes that had a lack of evidence/witnesses to prove someone did something illegal/harmful.
In modern cases of crime, such as say mass shooters... there should be no due process, no prison time either. If someone enters an establishment with many people present, doing no harm, with the motive and intent to harm, kill, as many as possible?
It automatically should be a forfeit of due process and be met with equal or greater force instantaneously.
It doesn't sit well with those who screech about due process who automatically default to either Muh wild wild west, or if you can throw due process away for mass murdering scumbags, you'll throw due process away for petty crimes and turn into a 3rd world chit hole. Especially with the bleeding hearts who make excuses for scumbags and want to cite Muh mental healthz.
Not sorry to say it, someone's psychosis with intent to initiate harm upon others is not defendable or excusable. If you exhibit the intent to harm others, have the motive to harm others, whether afflicted or not, nope. No excuse for it. Go be psychotic somewhere else. Or suffer the consequences from your actions.
Almost all of the bleeding hearts who shriek about self defense love to make the claim of chaos and play mental gymnastics over something so simple and claim it will diminish the nation into that of a 3rd world chit hole.
It wont.
Whether folks realize it or not... pandering, coddling, excusing, defending, harmful individuals-enables them.
If a woman is walking somewhere in the country side, in the burbs, in a city, she has no right to be raped.
If a classroom, a house of worship, or workplace has individuals inside it not harming a soul, following their pursuit of happiness, no homicidal scumbag has the right to commit harm upon them.
If a person or family is resting within the confines of their domicile at night, there is no right for someone to raid and plunder or harm/kill those inside.
If an individual is out in public, there is no right for them to be prey to any criminal under any circumstance. Be it a mugging, car jacking, assault, whatever.
The heinous that exists within society, those that partake in criminal enterprise, those that have a mental illness causing them to want to engage in wanton violence? Have no excuse to do so.
I would guarantee, bet, promise even, if there were a national stand your ground law, where you have every right to rightfully defend yourself, your loved ones, your fellow worshippers, your community, your fellow countrymen, from any and all harm, you would see the homicidal not be so quick to engage. You would see areas that are home to some of the most violent gangs take a stand against them.
When you read stories like this
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...icle-1.1581188
You ask where's that due process for that child? Why isn't that city grabbing pitchforks torches and weapons and going in for the scumbags responsible?
But. That isn't the mentality of cosmopolitan America. The mentality is, do something about the gunz!
Wrong.
Do something about the homicidal ideation. Do something about revoking the
incentive to be harmful. As long as there are bleeding hearts who can find an excuse via mental gymnastics to defend a violent offender. There will continue to be violent offenders.
In the case of that poor little girl... the entire city should have gone scorched earth on those responsible for her death. That's a 0 tolerance policy I believe everyone can get behind.
I come from a rational logical line of thinking. I don't let emotion cloud my judgement. If someone is going to go around performing drive by shootings and extinguishing the lives of an innocent little girl like that? They demonstrated the inability to be trusted with liberty. They demonstrated a blatant disregard for life. They voluntarily made a poor life choice regardless their reasoning. They surrendered, they forfeited their right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Like the rabid animals I used to put down, they too lost their right to life by attacking and being a threat/nuisance.
If I succumbed to the feelz. There probably would be alot of wailing that amounts to nothing productive. How is what I propose productive? It makes an example of the homicidal. It sends the message that the communities you reside in, aren't going to tolerate or accept your blatant disregard for others lives. You'll be dealt with swiftly, your days of instilling fear into others are over. Shoes going on the other foot now. No you get to worry whether you're safe within the confines of your home. Now you get to worry whether you'll be subjected to the same force you initiated upon others. Doesn't feel good does it? No not at all. Hurt's don't it?
Once examples are made and true 0 tolerance has been set. It ceases to continue.
It's no different than how I handled bullies in highschool, who got off on inflicting physical or mental pain upon others... pain is what they knew. It's what they understood. They could dish it. They never could take it. Never. I don't care how big, how strong, how fast. You mop the floor with someone twice your size that picked on kids half your size and got everyone they ever harmed to point and laugh, those that witnessed their ill deeds pointing and laughing.
They'd bawl their eyes out like a little girl to the school administration and shrink to come to their defense and try to make you look like the bad guy because they had it rough at home or whatever the excuse was. But they stopped it. From that moment on they never harmed another, because they were just embarrassed by someone half their size. Now they have their deepest darkest secret aired out and can REALLY be embarrassed should that story be told...
It's a simple concept really. Value your life? Value your freedom? Value your liberty? Don't go harming others. Don't suck at containing your emotions. For emotional responses often come with irrational behavior with dire consequences.
Case in point? Break ups. There are dudes who get so bent out of shape over a break up, they stalk, they harass, they make threats, in a feeble attempt to get the chick to come back. Whether through intimidation or through guilt. No. That isn't how you handle that you immature delinquent.
But Muh feelz! I love her!
No. No you dont. Love comes with respect. You don't love someone that threatens you, stalks you, harasses you. What makes you think she would welcome love or respect that?
I'll never understand that one. Where dudes go destructive thinking/feeling that will surely get her to come back. Problem solving skills. You lack them. You're just a manipulative, immature, punk that can't cope with the word, NO.
That goes for everyone really. Nobody deserves to be a victim. Nobody should be reduced to solely seeking an adult in the room. Everyone has a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Nobody has the right to harm that by violent force.
Should they, they deserve whatever comes their way.
Say if firearms never existed. You'd find objection to whatever tool for defense people chose to equip themselves with. Even martial arts. The whole. Only the police and military mental gymnastics.
I find it degenerate to insist only the government and it's agents are capable.
I find it degenerate to insist others can't be trusted with liberty- by default whether due to projection or whatever hang up it is.
I find it to be degenerate to insist defying human nature of self preservation.
You're free to choose how you live your life and defend it. Whether its being reliant upon 911, with a double barreled shotgun, a belt fed machine gun, dirty Harry's revolver, Grandpas Garand or M1 carbine, AR15 AK47/74, a glock, a 22, a knife, bare knuckles, whatever.
You are not free to offensively another for whatever reason. I have to say offense for ya'll can't distinguish offense from defense.
Once you get to threatening life? You are accepting all that comes next, whether it's arrest, or instant karma and going out with a bang. You do not have a right to introduce harm and a valid threat to another's life. Actions, heinous ones especially, come with consequences.
Make the heinous think twice before being hostile and posing a significant risk to life and well being. Throw that bleeding heart degenerate nonsense right out the window.
Make them be the ones fearful of others possibly being armed.
Afterall. They're the ones with blatant disregard for life anyways. They're in the fringe minority of the populace. What are we? 325 million? With an average of 9 or 10k homicides per year? If there was 1:1 ratio of armed murderer to victim, at most there would be 9/10k killers on average.
There would be far less of them if there were no incentive to kill.
Throw averaging out the window.
Here's the link to the FBI UCR data on murder comitted with what weapons.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls
See the totals for murders involving firearms?
2013-8,454
2014-8,312
2015-9,778
2016-11,138
2017-10,982
An average of 9,732.8 are slain by someone with a firearm every year. Out of 325 million. Less than 1% of the population will succumb to a heinous individual armed with a firearm.
Want to drive those numbers even lower?
Revoke the incentive.
Motive and intent will follow.
Take school and house of worship shooters for example.
Gun free zone, solely reliant upon law enforcement to stop a credible threat to life.
Place armed individuals in those 2 areas willing and able to defend those within the confines. The moment someone attempts to descend upon them and gets put down like a rabid animal, as their actions won't be tolerated. The heinous won't be so quick to descend upon schools and houses of worship any longer. The current model is to give the heinous their 15 minutes of infamy. Publish their photo, their manifesto, their weapons, their tactics to serve as inadvertent study guides to inspire more of the fringe. Why? Why in the world is the media and politicians giving them attention?
Easy. Gunz bad.
Let's appease the homicidal by making it even easier to harm others by coming up with new ways to limit, restrict and outlaw an individuals means of self defense.
That'll show them...
That's pants on head retarded. The focal point shouldn't be the implement, but the individual, oh so what they're homicidal they used a gun and gunz are bad. Gib gunz. Because that scumbag killed someone or some people with a gun anyone who has one will do the same. Feeble lemming logic.
Conflation, false equivalency.
I say. Stop giving them incentive. Revoke it. Make examples. Watch the school shootings and the house of worship shootings disappear once the media takes the current model and applies it to justifiable defense. The fringe won't be so quick to descend upon those two entities any more. Not when they're being published with a white sheet draped over their dead body. Or stay the course. And keep being complacent with more of the same. I find it unacceptable. So much so it can be condemned with equal/greater force.
Bleeding hearts-But but, they had a mental health issue they didn't deserve that!
Maybe, maybe don't be a murderous scumbag. Recognize it's not normal to want to engage in wanton violence upon innocent individuals. Seek help. Or. Dont. And f around and find out what happens.
But but Muh due process!
Maybe. Maybe don't be a murderous scumbag. Don't descend upon others with lethal force, and you won't succumb to justifable lethal force.
It's really that simple. I'll await the responses that say different. I bet money it will all be emotional/hyperbole based too. Not one rational, logical, or just opposing view point, followed with tons of character assasination conflation and false equivalency. Because Muh feelz.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how many people have poor reading comprehension skills. 
