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.
Maybe you should try and figure our why our society is like that and work towards fixing that. I'm pretty sure arming more people won't work towards that end. Go ahead and continue to advocate for laws that make YOU have the ability to defend YOURSELF. Once again I'll advocate for laws that attempt to tackle the problem and not avoid and/or perpetuate it.
If you want to keep things the way they are in WI, you ARE advocating people not be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves. Of course, we do have permitless open carry, which is great if someone doesn't want to drive (can't carry while in a vehicle, at all), doesn't live near a school zone (can't carry on public property within 1000' of a school zone), and doesn't alarm anyone (because they can then expect to be arrested in many places in this state). Supporting all of that tells me you have no qualms about stripping the fundamental right of self preservation from the public at large.
I'd love to end the problem of violence in our society. If I could do that singlehandedly, I'd be the most famous man in the world. Unfortunately, I am one man, so I cannot. I did my part. I arrested plenty of scumbags. Whether an ADA decided to charge or a judge decided to put them in prison, I have no control over. I made the best cases I could.
The societal issues cannot be solved through the criminal justice system alone. I'd go so far as to say the government can't even solve the problem, since it's primarily cultural. Therefore, the best way for individuals to control a crime problem is to confront it when it is sprung upon them. I'm obviously not talking about vigilantism; what I am saying is simply learn how to use the tools available to you should someone ever attempt to victimize you. The most terrifying thing to a criminal is an armed and alert citizenry, as that makes it nearly impossible for them to "work".
I simply disagreed with statement that I advocated "taking something away". You can't take away what is already gone. In Arizona we had a law that allowed concealed-carry with a permit. While I would prefer no one being allowed to carry a gun in public at least the permit means that a person has to go through some sort of training to get that permit. So yes that is better than what Arizona has now.
If I really thought that allowing citizens to carry guns would reduce people being shot then I would advocate for those laws. I don't believe that is the case. I want laws that make this country better for my kids and future generations to live in. At this point, with the information at hand, I don't believe everyone walking the streets with a piece is what I hope for the future of my kids and their kids.
The most terrifying thing to a criminal is an armed and alert citizenry, as that makes it nearly impossible for them to "work".
this is also the most terrifying thing for a liberal! Which is one of the primary reasons why we have the second amendment.
People will no longer need guns when everyone respects human life. This will never happen without God being part of the equation and people are too selfish to let God be in charge.
this is also the most terrifying thing for a liberal! Which is one of the primary reasons why we have the second amendment.
People will no longer need guns when everyone respects human life. This will never happen without God being part of the equation and people are too selfish to let God be in charge.
Funny you should say that Hamjeeper. I'm a liberal that fully supports that last sentence. You really think after reading the Bible that Jesus would have supported the citizenry carrying weapons around? You really think that Jesus would have supported the people seeking revenge in the form of capital punishment rather than God passing that ultimate judgement? You really think Jesus would have supported the dog eat dog world of capitalism where the rich get richer and the weak fall be the wayside? I thought Jesus was about loving all people and being completely selfless. If you think that "loving all people" and being completely selfless is closer to the conservative agenda than the liberal agenda then you are drinking the Limbaugh and Beck Kool-Aid just like most other conservatives in this country. Just because people go to church and are pro-life does not make them good Christians. A person that never goes to church but works towards all people being loved and treated equally is far more Jesus-like than the hypocrite that goes every Sunday and then judges and condemns Monday through Saturday.
Funny you should say that Hamjeeper. I'm a liberal that fully supports that last sentence. You really think after reading the Bible that Jesus would have supported the citizenry carrying weapons around? You really think that Jesus would have supported the people seeking revenge in the form of capital punishment rather than God passing that ultimate judgement? You really think Jesus would have supported the dog eat dog world of capitalism where the rich get richer and the weak fall be the wayside? I thought Jesus was about loving all people and being completely selfless. If you think that "loving all people" and being completely selfless is closer to the conservative agenda than the liberal agenda then you are drinking the Limbaugh and Beck Kool-Aid just like most other conservatives in this country. Just because people go to church and are pro-life does not make them good Christians. A person that never goes to church but works towards all people being loved and treated equally is far more Jesus-like than the hypocrite that goes every Sunday and then judges and condemns Monday through Saturday.
Are you really attempting to make an argument that there is no room for self defense in Christian teachings?
Are you really attempting to make an argument that there is no room for self defense in Christian teachings?
If you choose to read all that I've said and come that one sentence conclusion then that is fine. What I've said is that I don't believe if Jesus were living today he would condone the citizens ALL carrying weapons around as the chosen method of self-defense. If you disagree and believe that the Bible supports a Jesus that would advocate such a society then we will just have to agree to disagree.
If you choose to read all that I've said and come that one sentence conclusion then that is fine. What I've said is that I don't believe if Jesus were living today he would condone the citizens ALL carrying weapons around as the chosen method of self-defense. If you disagree and believe that the Bible supports a Jesus that would advocate such a society then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Personally, I see no need for the death penalty any more since we have the ability to imprison someone, completely isolated from society, for their entire life and it's cheaper than putting them to death. However, I do understand why the death penalty is acceptable as well as lethal self defense. As a good Roman Catholic and firmly believing that Church Doctrine is Christ's teaching, I defer to the Catechism as it explains it much better than I can:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."[65]
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65]
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]
Capital Punishment
2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]
Funny you should say that Hamjeeper. I'm a liberal that fully supports that last sentence.
Definitely no doubt about you being a liberal!
Quote:
You really think after reading the Bible that Jesus would have supported the citizenry carrying weapons around? You really think that Jesus would have supported the people seeking revenge in the form of capital punishment rather than God passing that ultimate judgement?
See the last post. The death penalty has nothing to do with revenge.
Quote:
You really think Jesus would have supported the dog eat dog world of capitalism where the rich get richer and the weak fall be the wayside? I thought Jesus was about loving all people and being completely selfless. If you think that "loving all people" and being completely selfless is closer to the conservative agenda than the liberal agenda then you are drinking the Limbaugh and Beck Kool-Aid just like most other conservatives in this country.
Christ never condemned the rich for being rich. He did tell them it was harder for them to get to heaven. I know that those rich conservatives are the ones who have built the companies that employ those who can work and conservatives are much more generous than liberals when it comes to supporting the poor legitimately. Christ did not tell us to make sure our government took care of the poor, he told us it was OUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to take care of the poor. Private, mostly faith-based, charities do this much more efficiently than a top-heavy bureaucracy that feeds off the people of this nation. Even with the federal and state governments raping our paychecks, most conservatives still manage to make up the majority of contributions to legitimate organizations who truly help the poor, domestically and internationally.
Quote:
Just because people go to church and are pro-life does not make them good Christians. A person that never goes to church but works towards all people being loved and treated equally is far more Jesus-like than the hypocrite that goes every Sunday and then judges and condemns Monday through Saturday.
Actually, its all part of the bargain. Supporting the murder of unborn children in abortion makes you culpable in those deaths and YOU WILL BE JUDGED for this sin. You have to serve God privately and publicly. It is a corporal act of mercy to educate the sinner. If someone openly sins, a Christian has an obligation to tell them what they are doing is sinful. He/she cannot say that person is going to hell as this is God's judgment only. At the same time, no matter how heinous the sin, a Christian should never persecute the sinner for their sin. Again, punishment for unrepented sin is at the hand of God. BTW, going to church is a sure way to “Remember to keep holy the sabbath day.” You might give it a try. You preach "all people being loved and treated equally" but you have an obvious hatred for conservatives and I would guess just about anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. So much for that one! Remember that sin separates you from God, so no matter how much good you do, any one sin you refuse to repent to will keep you from salvation.
Hamjeeper - If you look back at my posts I'm sure you'll see that I was attacked and any perceived hatred by you was a result of a retort that I was making. I don't hate conservatives. I simply find them selfish and hypocritical most of the time. I do attend church and I am pro-life. I just recognize that many others that do the same also gossip non-stop, hate gays, and turn their noses up to the less fortunate. All those attributes make them hypocrites.
I would love for private donations by citizens to be the way that we take care of the needy. The problem is that it would never be enough. As it stands soup kitchens are low on food all the time. Generally people care about themselves. And why would they not when the American Dream consists of making as much money as you can. How can we promote an economic system that encourages the ability to get rich and then be surprised that the result is a society that is greedy and selfish?
I do not live in WI currently. Have in the past and looking to move back. I would love to be able to keep my CCW in WI. I currently have my CCW in Missouri and completed the training/backround check a little over a year ago. Since then, I do carry my pistol on certain occasions. While I am traveling and when I am with my familiy in areas where I feel are easy for a criminal to take advantage of someone else. When I walk through the park behind my house (very low crime rate) I carry my pistol when with my family. I have been around guns all my life and know the dangers that surround simply having a gun, wether you choose to conceal or not.
The biggest thing to remember and they pushed this hard in the training is you do not shoot to kill, that is not the objective, you shoot to stop the threat PERIOD. You don't attempt fancy shots, you shoot for the center of mass to stop the threat.
If someone intends to do me or my family harm I will react in everyway possible to stop that threat. I do not depend on anyone else nor would I feel good about placing the safety of my familiy in anyones hands. I know way too many cops that I wouldn't even consider target shooting with because I feel they are unsafe with a weapon. (not saying all cops are like this, obviously this is not the case).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
