PDA

View Full Version : Another Media Shot at Gunowners...


HowardW56
05-01-2012, 6:50 PM
Washington Bullets
Gun-rights activists cheer a recent shooting spree.
Comments By Rick Anderson Wednesday, May 2 2012

Kevin Fernandes is remembered as a loving father to his young daughter. Josh Henderson was said to be a good man to his family. But both are dead because they criminally entered another man's home and were shot to death. Same for Ken Talley and Johnny Sok. The four of them died, and at least three others were wounded, in eight Seattle-area shooting incidents by homeowners since January. To some in the pro-gun crowd, this is a healthy trend.

Complete Story (http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-05-02/news/washington-bullets/)

vantec08
05-01-2012, 7:02 PM
Lets see if I have it straight: 4 dudes broke into someone's home during the nighttime and got smoked.


Yep. I'm ok with that.

alfred1222
05-01-2012, 7:21 PM
How do you take a man defending his home from burglars and spin it to make the criminals the victim's!?!? I swear the media in this country never ceases to amaze me with their stupidity.

Police said the homeowner barricaded himself and shouted "Leave my house! I have a gun! I don't want to shoot you!" but felt he had no choice. He fired at least three times after Henderson broke open the door to the room where the homeowner and girlfriend were hiding. "They're devastated," Interim King County Sheriff Steve Strachan said, telling reporters the homeowner feels he can never return to the house again.
This man is clearly a psychopathic killer and should be committed to a mental institute. The coke addict that broke into his home and assaulted him should, however, be moarned.

HowardW56
05-01-2012, 7:46 PM
Lets see if I have it straight: 4 dudes broke into someone's home during the nighttime and got smoked.


Yep. I'm ok with that.

:iagree:

dantodd
05-01-2012, 8:00 PM
I don't cheer the death of someone, anyone. I do celebrate the saving of an innocent life.

SilverTauron
05-01-2012, 8:06 PM
That reporter should be deported to the North Korean city whence he came.

His damaged perspective has no place in the Land of the Free.

kedenimar
05-01-2012, 8:11 PM
I don't cheer the death of someone, anyone. I do celebrate the saving of an innocent life.



agree.

dantodd
05-01-2012, 8:12 PM
That reporter should be deported to the North Korean city whence he came.

His damaged perspective has no place in the Land of the Free.

So, because the reporter is using his first amendment stupidly to suggest our 2nd amendment rights should be infringed you feel he should be deported and effectively silenced. Hmmmm.... I suppose pointing out the contradictions in your post would fall on deaf ears.

monk
05-01-2012, 8:36 PM
Some of his claims do make sense. At the end he mentions a guy who was convicted because he followed a burglar 3 hours after the incident and shot him in the back. Can't claim self-defense at that point.

emsalex
05-01-2012, 8:37 PM
There is a difference between using a right and hiding behind it,

DannyInSoCal
05-01-2012, 8:51 PM
There is a difference between using a right and hiding behind it,

There is also a difference between supporting the Constitution -

And only supporting the parts fitting your own personal agendas...

Fjold
05-01-2012, 9:25 PM
I like the comments.

Stonewalker
05-01-2012, 9:43 PM
I don't cheer the death of someone, anyone. I do celebrate the saving of an innocent life.

Dude! Word! Can I sig that?

Here is my contribution... I sort of let loose. I didn't say anything disrespectful or use any "angry" composition, but I wrote a wall of text calling that author out. What a disgusting thing it is to deride the innocent survivors of violent crimes because they fought back. I'm seriously angry about this attitude, it is not a legitimate way of thinking. Anyways, here's my response -

Using force to defend against a person who has broken into a home in the middle of the night is one of the oldest recognized legitimate uses of force. English Common Law considered any use of force in defense of self or others to be legitimate. The Hebrews, who were among the first to ever create a society based on laws, codified the right to use force against a criminal breaking in at night.

How can you call separate self-defense shootings, inside the home of separate victims of burglaries, a "shooting spree"? Do you honestly believe that the people who chose to hurt others for profit, are the victims - just because the people they chose to hurt had a way of fighting back? Should victims of violent crime just lie down and "hope for the best"?

One of the homeowners did absolutely everything he possibly could have done to *not* shoot the burglars, including barricading the family in his bedroom and giving verbal warnings. Are you telling me that you honestly believe the men who broke through his barricade are **victims**? What do you think those men were there to do? Clearly, it wasn't to just steal valuables. At this point, these men are here to use physical force for the purpose of victimizing the homeowner and his girlfriend. Would you "try to wound" them at this point? And how would you go about doing that? I suppose he should have shot at their feet, or perhaps shot the crowbar out of their hands? Let me ask you - why, when the criminal's intent is so obviously to do harm, would you use anything less than the most effective tool to stop the threat? Whether you like it or not, the most effective tool is the force of bullets entering the chest cavity.

And guess what, only 10% of gunshot wound victims die, compared against over 30% of stab wound victims. A gun is effective at stopping the threat, and that's what these homeowners used them for.

Please, answer me these questions. I'll tell you, I abhor violence and I would never use it except for the sole purpose of stopping another violent attack. If you think this is unnecessary then you are clearly not acquainted with humanity or any amount of human history. Violence is never good, but if it is used to save innocent people from harm, then it is justified.

You are degrading the innocent survivors of these violent crimes by calling them "shooters" instead of "victims". It's disgusting.

ja308
05-01-2012, 9:45 PM
So, because the reporter is using his first amendment stupidly to suggest our 2nd amendment rights should be infringed you feel he should be deported and effectively silenced. Hmmmm.... I suppose pointing out the contradictions in your post would fall on deaf ears.

the 1st amendment was never intended to be a national suicide pact .
The founders never envisioned reporters or a media so devoid of any human values as to call for the elimination of rights.
The 1st amendment was intended to inform people ,not propagandise for royal blood and financial dynastie's

At the very least these reporters should be required to register as agents of a foreign govt. At most exile would be an appropriate option.

Carnivore
05-01-2012, 10:01 PM
I don't cheer the death of someone, anyone. I do celebrate the saving of an innocent life.

OK not that a fault you for this but I have to ask. You didn't cheer when Osama was shot? Again if you didn't you are a better man then I. Well maybe not better just very different. Again I don't fault you just I guess don't understand is a better way of putting it.

SilverTauron
05-01-2012, 10:21 PM
There is also a difference between supporting the Constitution -

And only supporting the parts fitting your own personal agendas...

Challenge accepted.

As I say this now I have a CCW permit in my pocket.

I paid $10 at the sheriffs station to acquire my shall issue Permit to Carry and it was valid on the spot.

According to your logic I should march to the State Capitol in Pierre, SD, and protest the infringement on my right to keep and bear arms in the form of an instant background check and the requirement to pay a $10 fee?

The Constitution recognizes inherent civil rights. It does not support the abuse of the same. With that point established, I never said this person should be silenced. He is free to write whatever he likes in a country which protects its criminals over its taxpayers.

Justin Case
05-01-2012, 10:22 PM
...Here is my contribution... I sort of let loose. I didn't say anything disrespectful or use any "angry" composition, but I wrote a wall of text calling that author out. What a disgusting thing it is to deride the innocent survivors of violent crimes because they fought back. I'm seriously angry about this attitude, it is not a legitimate way of thinking. Anyways, here's my response -

Dude! Well done :D

Seriously, I read your comments on the site and you made excellent points.

I don't cheer the death of someone, anyone. I do celebrate the saving of an innocent life.

I approve of your sentiment, but I disagree in principle. Some people deserve killin'. And some deaths deserve cheerin'.

NeenachGuy
05-01-2012, 10:59 PM
There seem to be two distinct and diametrically opposed schools of thought in our society today.

One school says that individuals are responsible for their own actions. When individuals do bad things, it is as a result of their own free will and therefore they are fully entitled to the consequences that result from their actions, including (and not limited to) being killed as the result of another individual's right to defend himself or herself.

The other school says that the concept of an "individual" is false, merely illusion. People are no more than the product of their environment and heredity. There's no such thing as a bad person, just bad circumstances. In this school of thought, it is wrong to kill someone, even in self-defense, because the person is only doing "bad" things as a result of a bad break. Rather than taking a life (in an act of self-defense), we should focus on building a better society where we try to reduce bad circumstances and encourage (via government) good circumstances.

Once someone subscribes to the second school of thought, there is no hope for that person.

Bill Carson
05-01-2012, 11:02 PM
Lets see if I have it straight: 4 dudes broke into someone's home during the nighttime and got smoked.


Yep. I'm ok with that.
This

CBruce
05-01-2012, 11:16 PM
I don't cheer the death of someone, anyone. I do celebrate the saving of an innocent life.

:iagree:

Loss of any human life is tragic to me.

InGrAM
05-01-2012, 11:33 PM
:facepalm:

It never ceases to amaze me....

dantodd
05-01-2012, 11:35 PM
OK not that a fault you for this but I have to ask. You didn't cheer when Osama was shot? Again if you didn't you are a better man then I. Well maybe not better just very different. Again I don't fault you just I guess don't understand is a better way of putting it.

No, I didn't cheer. I think that killing him was the right thing to do as opposed to capturing him alive. I think Hitler would be more likely to have brought joy at the death of someone. By the time we killed Osama he was largely irrelevant and living underground like a rat afraid to poke his head out of the ground. Don't get me wrong I don't mean to say that I am against people who do horrible things losing their life, either in a life or death self-defense manner or at the hands of the state. I support the death penalty and truly believe that some people reap what they sow. I just don't believe that it is a joyous event.

Had one of my close family members been a victim of 9/11 or of a criminal who faces the gas chamber I may not hold such a "noble" position.

dantodd
05-01-2012, 11:40 PM
the 1st amendment was never intended to be a national suicide pact .
The founders never envisioned reporters or a media so devoid of any human values as to call for the elimination of rights.
The 1st amendment was intended to inform people ,not propagandise for royal blood and financial dynastie's

At the very least these reporters should be required to register as agents of a foreign govt. At most exile would be an appropriate option.

The second amendment was never intended to have people running around carrying concealed weapons.

The founders never envisioned a world where people didn't need to hunt or protect themselves on the frontier. They never envisioned guns and small and deadly as those we have today.

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that a militia could be mustered in a time of need against tyranny or foreign threat, not to shoot people over parking spaces or inspire insurrection against a democratically elected government.

I hope you now see the foolishness of your comments.

m03
05-02-2012, 12:04 AM
The second amendment was never intended to have people running around carrying concealed weapons.

The founders never envisioned a world where people didn't need to hunt or protect themselves on the frontier. They never envisioned guns and small and deadly as those we have today.

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that a militia could be mustered in a time of need against tyranny or foreign threat, not to shoot people over parking spaces or inspire insurrection against a democratically elected government.

I hope you now see the foolishness of your comments.

I see what you did there...

ja308
05-02-2012, 12:37 AM
The second amendment was never intended to have people running around carrying concealed weapons.

The founders never envisioned a world where people didn't need to hunt or protect themselves on the frontier. They never envisioned guns and small and deadly as those we have today.

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that a militia could be mustered in a time of need against tyranny or foreign threat, not to shoot people over parking spaces or inspire insurrection against a democratically elected government.

I hope you now see the foolishness of your comments.

The founders never intended for really ignorant people to be able to transmit absolute foolish comments electronically ,the only press protected under #1 was the hand operated press of the 1700s . They had no idea of computer word processors. So with your logic article #1 is no longer valid.

not sure what your reading or where you get the info posted above but you obviously have a serious problem with law abiding folks having the ability to protect themselves ,or enjoy the shooting sports or hunting .

BTW the USA is the only place on planet earth where commen people have these rights.
I could continue with worldwide homicide stats and quotes from the founders,but nothing you read ,regardless of source ,will alter your mentality ,that perhaps you are the only person qualified to own a handgun .

Obviously you are man of superior inteligence,far beyond us average folks who only wish the rights our constitution guarentee's .

Perhaps your life may be more rewarding if you chose another nation with a foundation more inline with your idea's . You have the ENTIRE planet to consider as USA is the only one with a guarenteed RKBA.

Cearbhall
05-02-2012, 12:45 AM
I like the comments after the story:

"The only way Rick could have gotten this job is to have caught the owner of this site in an unnatural act with a goat. Rick, change your water supply. It's rotting you brain."

BTW, my sister's a cop in that area (not Seattle), last time we were visiting there was a blurb on TV about a home invader getting shot. I said "Hmm.. There sure are a lot of burglars getting shot these days...

She said "Good!"

Cearbhall
05-02-2012, 1:54 AM
Here's last week's anti- gun rights rant from the same guy:
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/04/gun_nutty_state_pistol_permits.php

Lugiahua
05-02-2012, 2:32 AM
The second amendment was never intended to have people running around carrying concealed weapons.

The founders never envisioned a world where people didn't need to hunt or protect themselves on the frontier. They never envisioned guns and small and deadly as those we have today.

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that a militia could be mustered in a time of need against tyranny or foreign threat, not to shoot people over parking spaces or inspire insurrection against a democratically elected government.

I hope you now see the foolishness of your comments.

The Founders didn't intend a lot of things:
- they didn't intend a general election for common people.
(property requirement)
- they didn't intend to abolish slavery, nor give citizenship for non-white
- they didn't intend to give voting right to women

and yet these are now part of the Constitution and considered by many as basic right of the citizen.

sergtjim
05-02-2012, 9:28 AM
The second amendment was never intended to have people running around carrying concealed weapons.

The founders never envisioned a world where people didn't need to hunt or protect themselves on the frontier. They never envisioned guns and small and deadly as those we have today.

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that a militia could be mustered in a time of need against tyranny or foreign threat, not to shoot people over parking spaces or inspire insurrection against a democratically elected government.

I hope you now see the foolishness of your comments.

Chances are that you're already a member of the Militia:
10 USC sec 311:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia areó (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I suggest you read some history, particularly that of the Constitutional Conventions, and the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Nathan Hale, and so on.

I hope then you will see the foolishness of your comments.

proclone1
05-02-2012, 9:31 AM
Dude! Word! Can I sig that?

Here is my contribution... I sort of let loose. I didn't say anything disrespectful or use any "angry" composition, but I wrote a wall of text calling that author out. What a disgusting thing it is to deride the innocent survivors of violent crimes because they fought back. I'm seriously angry about this attitude, it is not a legitimate way of thinking. Anyways, here's my response -

Stonewalker I read your comments on the website, awesome awesome awesome. Really impressed and wish I had a million $$ to run your comments in a full page ad in the NYT (lol like they'd ever run it no matter how much $$)

jdberger
05-02-2012, 9:33 AM
the 1st amendment was never intended to be a national suicide pact .
The founders never envisioned reporters or a media so devoid of any human values as to call for the elimination of rights.
The 1st amendment was intended to inform people ,not propagandise for royal blood and financial dynastie's

At the very least these reporters should be required to register as agents of a foreign govt. At most exile would be an appropriate option.

Wrong on every single point.

jdberger
05-02-2012, 9:40 AM
The founders never intended for really ignorant people to be able to transmit absolute foolish comments electronically ,the only press protected under #1 was the hand operated press of the 1700s . They had no idea of computer word processors. So with your logic article #1 is no longer valid.

not sure what your reading or where you get the info posted above but you obviously have a serious problem with law abiding folks having the ability to protect themselves ,or enjoy the shooting sports or hunting .

BTW the USA is the only place on planet earth where commen people have these rights.
I could continue with worldwide homicide stats and quotes from the founders,but nothing you read ,regardless of source ,will alter your mentality ,that perhaps you are the only person qualified to own a handgun .

Obviously you are man of superior inteligence,far beyond us average folks who only wish the rights our constitution guarentee's .

Perhaps your life may be more rewarding if you chose another nation with a foundation more inline with your idea's . You have the ENTIRE planet to consider as USA is the only one with a guarenteed RKBA.

And your sarcasm meter is out of calibration.

Dan is simply translating your ludicrous (and distinctly un-American) opinions about the First Amendment into Second Amendment terms to illustrate how foolish they are.

And as a point of reference, I know that if CGF ever needs a volunteer, someone to put in tough hours for thankless work, I can call on Dan. He's an invaluable asset to the 2A community.

mdimeo
05-02-2012, 9:41 AM
comments on the original article are currently 14-0 against the author. Win.

taperxz
05-02-2012, 9:47 AM
The founders never intended for really ignorant people to be able to transmit absolute foolish comments electronically ,the only press protected under #1 was the hand operated press of the 1700s . They had no idea of computer word processors. So with your logic article #1 is no longer valid.

not sure what your reading or where you get the info posted above but you obviously have a serious problem with law abiding folks having the ability to protect themselves ,or enjoy the shooting sports or hunting .

BTW the USA is the only place on planet earth where commen people have these rights.
I could continue with worldwide homicide stats and quotes from the founders,but nothing you read ,regardless of source ,will alter your mentality ,that perhaps you are the only person qualified to own a handgun .

Obviously you are man of superior inteligence,far beyond us average folks who only wish the rights our constitution guarentee's .

Perhaps your life may be more rewarding if you chose another nation with a foundation more inline with your idea's . You have the ENTIRE planet to consider as USA is the only one with a guarenteed RKBA.

You can't blame the author for their opinions or want to crucify him.

Just like no one can be blamed for twisting your arm to read the article of a privately owned news outlet.

TATER313
05-02-2012, 9:50 AM
Media spews all kinds of BS, for a profit. Media infringes on a persons right to due process of a fair trial, most high profile cases are prosecuted by the media. There are a lot of ignorant people when they see an Ar or AK, say;" isn't that illegal or those are dangerous, isnt that semi-automatic" etc. I try to educate them, no they are not illegal, and many pistols are semi auto and so are shotguns and some hunting rifles. Then the criminals have the guns. Then I inform them that they do not receive the firearms legally.

Montu
05-02-2012, 9:55 AM
it truly is amazing that there are people who think like the author.

entertaining read.

ja308
05-02-2012, 10:00 AM
And your sarcasm meter is out of calibration.

Dan is simply translating your ludicrous (and distinctly un-American) opinions about the First Amendment into Second Amendment terms to illustrate how foolish they are.


And as a point of reference, I know that if CGF ever needs a volunteer, someone to put in tough hours for thankless work, I can call on Dan. He's an invaluable asset to the 2A community.


Point well taken ^5
my sincere apologies to Dan, for misreading his sarcasm .

My response was as I hope you will reread sarcastic in tone.Unforunately directed at a fellow brother in our struggle to preserve our unalienable rights .

I will stand by the comment regrding the 1st amendment ,never being intended as a vehicle to destroy rights outlined by the constitution.
Possibly the founders would have thought it insane that free people could be so easily tricked by a clever 5th column media .

dbo31
05-02-2012, 10:06 AM
Oh America..always blaming the victims. But honestly that is a ridiculous opinion piece..no one in their right mind would agree with it or pay it any attention. If someone broke into that dick heads house something tells me he'd help the poor unfortunates cart his belongings into their vans

taperxz
05-02-2012, 10:14 AM
Oh America..always blaming the victims. But honestly that is a ridiculous opinion piece..no one in their right mind would agree with it or pay it any attention. If someone broke into that dick heads house something tells me he'd help the poor unfortunates cart his belongings into their vans


You still don't get it do you? America, always blaming the victims?

No one in their right mind?

Don't YOU see how your response can be and is used by the antis?

If you don't like the OPINION of an author, you can dismiss it but you can't deny their right to express it.

dbo31
05-02-2012, 10:29 AM
lol no one's denying his right to spew his stupidity...it gave me a hearty belly laugh so good on him. He was blaming the victims..he described one of the burglars as a "good man to his family"..well even Hitler had a gf. He'd probably be an even better man to his family if he decided to not break into the home of an armed private citizen

Stop trying to seem like we want to take away his 1st amendment rights..no one is doing that here. We're simply mocking his opinions

taperxz
05-02-2012, 10:41 AM
lol no one's denying his right to spew his stupidity...it gave me a hearty belly laugh so good on him. He was blaming the victims..he described one of the burglars as a "good man to his family"..well even Hitler had a gf. He'd probably be an even better man to his family if he decided to not break into the home of an armed private citizen

Stop trying to seem like we want to take away his 1st amendment rights..no one is doing that here. We're simply mocking his opinions

Who is we?

Sutcliffe
05-02-2012, 10:43 AM
Who hired this imbecile?

dbo31
05-02-2012, 10:44 AM
Who is we?


Us and all the comments on his article's page

Lagduf
05-02-2012, 10:52 AM
In what way is calling for the author to be exiled to North Korea or "register" as a foreign agent "mocking" his opinion?

That's not mocking his opinion. It's an attack on his right to speak freely.

dbo31
05-02-2012, 10:54 AM
That's not mocking his opinion. It's an attack on his right to speak freely.

I only speak for me..He can freely say whatever he wants..I can freely mock and laugh at it. The opinions I express are mine and mine alone

taperxz
05-02-2012, 10:56 AM
I only speak for me..He can freely say whatever he wants..I can freely mock and laugh at it. The opinions I express are mine and mine alone

Oh, so it's not "we" any more.

dantodd
05-02-2012, 11:11 AM
Sometimes I am intentionally obtuse, however; I really thought it was obvious that I was merely re-writing ja308's post since I duplicated his points one by one only replacing 1st amendment with 2nd.

If you aren't willing to fight for ALL the rights in the constitution you are not just advocating for a particular activity not supporting a "right."

And for the record I am not in the informal militia.

Chances are that you're already a member of the Militia:
10 USC sec 311:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia areó (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I suggest you read some history, particularly that of the Constitutional Conventions, and the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Nathan Hale, and so on.

I hope then you will see the foolishness of your comments.

dbo31
05-02-2012, 12:01 PM
Oh, so it's not "we" any more.

Its always the royal "we" champ

Gryff
05-02-2012, 12:07 PM
That reporter should be deported to the North Korean city whence he came.

His damaged perspective has no place in the Land of the Free.

It absolutely has a place in the Land of the Free. Stifling his right to ejaculate stupidity in a public forum has no place in our nation. Just as we have the right to point that he's an idiot.

If you respect the Second Amendment and the Constitution, don't turn fascist when you don't like the way someone exhibits their First Amendment rights. It has to go both ways, even when distasteful.

stix213
05-02-2012, 1:24 PM
That's one of the dumbest articles I've ever read.

Merovign
05-03-2012, 11:28 AM
The other school says that the concept of an "individual" is false, merely illusion. People are no more than the product of their environment and heredity. There's no such thing as a bad person, just bad circumstances. In this school of thought, it is wrong to kill someone, even in self-defense, because the person is only doing "bad" things as a result of a bad break. Rather than taking a life (in an act of self-defense), we should focus on building a better society where we try to reduce bad circumstances and encourage (via government) good circumstances.


You don't understand the true depth of their delusion and hypocrisy. To do so, only consider that this chain of thought, that the violent, destructive result of "society" or "environment" excuses the assailant, but not the defender.

It's not amorality, it is *actively* siding with the party that's in the wrong against the party that's in the right.

There is a large contingent of self-described thinkers who prefer the criminal to the victim, the dictator to the subject, the slaver to the slave.

This is a non-trivial problem, and we have developed a terrible cultural habit of treating this as a legitimate philosophy rather than a revolting inversion of morality and philosophy.

SilverTauron
05-03-2012, 12:05 PM
It absolutely has a place in the Land of the Free. Stifling his right to ejaculate stupidity in a public forum has no place in our nation. Just as we have the right to point that he's an idiot.

If you respect the Second Amendment and the Constitution, don't turn fascist when you don't like the way someone exhibits their First Amendment rights. It has to go both ways, even when distasteful.

Interesting.

I never said he couldn't write what he wanted. I stated his warped perspective needs to be espoused elsewhere.

I believe in the Bill of Rights;I also believe in something called "common decency." Siding with a home invader against the unwitting citizen crosses an easy to understand common decency level.

Just like the Right to Bear Arms is not absolute, and the right to illegal search and seizure won't save you from a plain sight violation, the Right to Free Speech isn't absolute either. Otherwise, why have forum moderators and offensive language censors? Ironic that you guys jump down my throat on freedom of expression using an internet forum that's regulated for content by its leadership.

For claritys sake, I wish to make clear that I have nothing against the moderators or forum policy:im making a point that the Right to Free Speech is regulated like any other. Is is "60 days and beg the police cheif just to read a paper" regulated, no. Can you just run down your office yelling f-bombs at random? Why not: you should sue for civil rights violations on the 1st Amendment in the event you get fired.

Untamed1972
05-03-2012, 12:43 PM
Fernandes played football and basketball and ran track at Bethel High School. In his Tacoma News Tribune obituary, his family said "He lived life with passion and truly loved his family and friends."


All meaningless and irrelevant when you and your dirtbag friends break into MY house with intent to do ME or or my family harm. I don't give a crap how much you truly loved YOUR family in that moment....all that matters is how much I love MINE!

Goosebrown
05-03-2012, 2:35 PM
I hope I don't ever have to shoot anyone, but if the break into my house that is what'll happen more than likely. While it is a tragedy in an abstract sense, in that someone will lose their life, I won't hesitate to do it.

kcbrown
05-03-2012, 5:30 PM
The other school says that the concept of an "individual" is false, merely illusion. People are no more than the product of their environment and heredity. There's no such thing as a bad person, just bad circumstances. In this school of thought, it is wrong to kill someone, even in self-defense, because the person is only doing "bad" things as a result of a bad break. Rather than taking a life (in an act of self-defense), we should focus on building a better society where we try to reduce bad circumstances and encourage (via government) good circumstances.


This school of thought ignores the very real and proven fact of hereditary evolution. The question isn't whether someone inherits the propensity to do bad things, it's only how much.

The existence of inherited traits and natural selection leads to an obvious rebuttal to the above argument: when two lives are on the line, one of them being that of someone who is defending themselves and the other being that of someone doing something bad, the act of self-defense will tend to preserve the life of the person who is inclined to not do bad things (whether due to heredity or environment), while refraining from same will tend to preserve the life of the person who is inclined to do bad things. Since the chance of the "do bad things" trait being inherited is nonzero, it automatically follows that the act of self-defense will tend to decrease the general propensity of the population as a whole to "do bad things", while the act of refraining from self-defense will tend to increase it.

It then merely becomes a question of which type of person we desire to have more of in society: the type who tend to do "bad things", or the type who tend not to. Those who side with the criminals, as do those who wrote the article under discussion, are actively promoting a society that has a propensity to do "bad things", and they need to be called out on that.


Also, on whether or not the use of free speech to argue against a natural right is a protected act, there are two possibilities:


It's protected, in which case the utter hypocrisy of the speaker should be aggressively highlighted (for it is only the fact that the speaker is making use of his protected right that guarantees that he will not be silenced), or
It's not protected, in which case it should be silenced in an effort to protect the right(s) being attacked.