Arguing with a liberal about Open and Concealed Carry

[Mark Chitty]

Murder defined...The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

An individual is found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and is sentenced to death. This person is then allowed years of appeals prior to execution of the jury's and judge's orders and you equate this with "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice".

You must have a cynical disdain for our judicial system and laws to hold this position.

The person who is charged with murder also ends up with homicide on their death certificate when they are executed. Homicide and murder are pretty interchangeable, but do speak to intent. So yes, the legal system does differentiate between the intent, but not the act itself. If taking someones life is wrong, then punishing it by taking someones life should be equally wrong. To differentiate between lawful and unlawful killing gives a small group the power to decide it's okay to kill this person, but not okay to kill that person. Nobody should be granted that kind of authority and history should serve as a lesson that "lawful killing" doesn't make it right or just. The obvious and overzealous comparison would be that it was lawful to kill Jews in Nazi Germany. But a more apt and applicable comparison would be the law that made it "lawful" to kill Mormons in the state of Missouri.

Link Removed

I have a cynical disdain for anyone who thinks they can appropriately decide who deserves to have their life taken and more than ample justification for that position. The point of my argument, however, was that it is a complicated subject and neither side is necessarily wrong but simply prioritize one of two different factors that both hold good intention but find themselves in opposition in this particular topic.

 

[whitefeather]

Nobody should be granted that kind of authority and history should serve as a lesson that "lawful killing" doesn't make it right or just. The obvious and overzealous comparison would be that it was lawful to kill Jews in Nazi Germany.

Now you equate the slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany with our judicial system? Being of Jewish heritage, this is an offensive and foolish comparison.

I stand by my statement: "You must have a cynical disdain for our judicial system and laws to hold this position".

 

[Mark Chitty]

Now you equate the slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany with our judicial system? Being of Jewish heritage, this is an offensive and foolish comparison.

I stand by my statement: "You must have a cynical disdain for our judicial system and laws to hold this position".

If you reread I think you'll find I didn't equate the act, only the justification that it was "lawful." I also stated that the comparison was overzealous. Twisting my words and showing disdain does nothing for your argument but suggest that you don't have one. Making killing a person "lawful" does not mean it's right. It wasn't right in Nazi Germany, it wasn't right in Missouri, what makes it right because a different set of people are making the decision and you happen to support it? Because I think that you'll find that both Hitler and Boggs had a lot of supporters but were still horribly wrong for thinking they had the right to decide who deserves to die.

Throughout history people have made and will continue to make horrible decisions. Allowing anyone to decide if it is ever lawful to take another persons life for any reason other than defense is just asking for trouble. Even with all the safeguards this country has in place eventually someone will make a mistake and an innocent person will be "lawfully" killed. If you don't see that in history, look at the laws of probability because the only way to 100% guarantee an innocent person will never be executed is to not execute anybody.

I also made it blatantly clear that I don't believe either side is necessarily wrong in this argument. Simply that they have different priorities over two conflicting ideals. That's hardly an attack on the justice system, let alone comparing that system to the acts of one of the most despicable and hated groups in history. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but can only assume that you either overreacted to the mention of nazis or willfully tried to turn what I said in to something it wasn't.

Just to be 100% clear. Slaughtering Jews or Mormons is not comparable to executing criminals. But the "lawful" slaughter of Jews and Mormons goes a long way to prove that you cannot justify any killing by saying it's okay just because it's lawful. It also has nothing to do with how anybody feels about our judicial system unless you really believe that every law put in place in our judicial system is absolutely fair, right, and just. Because you apparently seem to believe that thinking the judicial is not infallible equates to cynical disdain.

No system is infallible, no person is infallible, ergo no person or system should be given the power to take a persons life. And just in case you still haven't got the point I was trying to make when I mentioned Nazis: Nazis bad + Jew killing bad = Lawful does not automatically make it right.

Please feel free to argue with the actual point that was made instead of blowing a single comment out of proportion so that you can act all offended and detract from the actual topic you were trying to discuss with me. If this is really how you take to debating to a serious topic then maybe you need to agree to disagree on certain subjects and move on to those areas of the forum you can provide useful information. If you troll a thread such as this, man up, be prepared for the potential outcome.

 

[whitefeather]

.

Slaughtering Jews or Mormons is not comparable to executing criminals. But the "lawful" slaughter of Jews and Mormons goes a long way to prove that you cannot justify any killing by saying it's okay just because it's lawful.

The "lawful" slaughter, as you say, was only lawful in the minds of a murderous dictator and his followers, not in anything comparable to our judicial system. The murder of innocent humans by a mass murder is with malice. You believe that 12 jurors a judge and several appeals courts executes someone with malice? This is what you must believe to believe it is murder.

Please feel free to argue with the actual point that was made instead of blowing a single comment out of proportion so that you can act all offended and detract from the actual topic you were trying to discuss with me. If this is really how you take to debating to a serious topic then maybe you need to agree to disagree on certain subjects and move on to those areas of the forum you can provide useful information. If you troll a thread such as this, man up, be prepared for the potential outcome.

I am far from offended. Your use of my quote on a different thread "If this is really how you take to debating to a serious topic then maybe you need to agree to disagree on certain subjects and move on to those areas of the forum you can provide useful information. If you troll a thread such as this, man up, be prepared for the potential outcome". is a sincere form of flattery. :laugh:

 

[Mark Chitty]

.

The "lawful" slaughter, as you say, was only lawful in the minds of a murderous dictator and his followers, not in anything comparable to our judicial system. The murder of innocent humans by a mass murder is with malice. You believe that 12 jurors a judge and several appeals courts executes someone with malice? This is what you must believe to believe it is murder.




I am far from offended. Your use of my quote on a different thread "If this is really how you take to debating to a serious topic then maybe you need to agree to disagree on certain subjects and move on to those areas of the forum you can provide useful information. If you troll a thread such as this, man up, be prepared for the potential outcome". is a sincere form of flattery. :laugh:

You're still hung up on one element of what I said. What about the law they passed in Missouri? Nothing to say about it? You brought up the difference between murder and the lawful killing of a person. I gave a couple of examples that show a lawful killing is not the same as a just killing. Picking at one of those examples as though it was supposed to be analogous does not refute that. The sad thing is that this subject wasn't even the topic being discussed, or even a substantial part of what I was originally trying to say.

If you don't have a real argument then let it go. If you do then start a new thread discussing this topic. Either way I think we are done here.

 

[Bikenut]

Interesting thing about capital punishment... regardless of questions concerning morality ... personal opinion/beliefs... and philosophical arguments... the one inescapable fact is..........

If society uses the law to kill a killer guilty of killing an innocent......... that killer will not kill an innocent again.

 

[sig p6]

I think i will push the button.. Troll

 

[Mark Chitty]

Interesting thing about capital punishment... regardless of questions concerning morality ... personal opinion/beliefs... and philosophical arguments... the one inescapable fact is..........

If society uses the law to kill a killer guilty of killing an innocent......... that killer will not kill an innocent again.

Like I originally stated, it's a complicated issue with valid and well meaning, but ultimately conflicting arguments on both sides. Some people would rather not risk executing an innocent person, others would rather not risk the murderer killing again. Both are completely reasonable in my opinion. The issue is further clouded by moral views and values, but as long as nobody is saying let them all go or kill everyone without due process, neither side is really wrong because there just isn't a perfect solution.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Capgun originally mentioned BIGOT in post #64
pistol annie Responded to Capgun by in post #71

So I simply responded in kind about being called a name.

Ok, thank you. I meant to say that I have NOT read through this entire thread. I'll go back and take a look at the posts you mentioned.

 

[SouthernBoy]

The person who is charged with murder also ends up with homicide on their death certificate when they are executed. Homicide and murder are pretty interchangeable, but do speak to intent. So yes, the legal system does differentiate between the intent, but not the act itself. If taking someones life is wrong, then punishing it by taking someones life should be equally wrong. To differentiate between lawful and unlawful killing gives a small group the power to decide it's okay to kill this person, but not okay to kill that person. Nobody should be granted that kind of authority and history should serve as a lesson that "lawful killing" doesn't make it right or just. The obvious and overzealous comparison would be that it was lawful to kill Jews in Nazi Germany. But a more apt and applicable comparison would be the law that made it "lawful" to kill Mormons in the state of Missouri.

Link Removed

I have a cynical disdain for anyone who thinks they can appropriately decide who deserves to have their life taken and more than ample justification for that position. The point of my argument, however, was that it is a complicated subject and neither side is necessarily wrong but simply prioritize one of two different factors that both hold good intention but find themselves in opposition in this particular topic.

I would venture the idea that if this is true, then the taking of one's life in a self defense shooting is also wrong so the victim should not open fire against an assailant since the outcome could result in the assailant's demise. I'm pretty certain most on this forum would find this idea to be preposterous since self defense is an innate right. The law may view it as an excusable, or justifiable depending upon where you live, homicide, but the fact remains that a victims actions when doing this could very likely cause the death of someone without trail or jury.

My advise to those who believe in our absolute right of self defense is to not associate with those who believe self defense to be less than desirable at best, or inexcusable in the worse case. They will be vexations to your spirit.

 

[FTG-05]

Ignorance and hatred are mental diseases. If you really think that the abortion and death penalty arguments are as simple as executing babies and protecting murderers, then you've got it bad. If it were really that simple everyone would probably be able to agree, but it's not. I'm anti-abortion but my belief in not infringing upon the rights of others conflicts with that a great deal. I'm anti death penalty also, not because I'm inclined to protect people that commit horrific acts, but because I don't think "he did it first" is a valid argument for anything, let alone something as serious as murder.

[snip]

Blah, blah, blah. Typical liberal rationalizations, justifications and obfuscations.

It really is that simple: Liberals willing to kill innocent babies and protect known and convicted murderers. It's a sickness, pure and simple.

 

[fuhr52]

Arguing with a liberal on any subject is a waste of time. The liberal is right you are wrong, end of argument.

 

[Bikenut]

Arguing with a liberal on any subject is a waste of time. The liberal is right you are wrong, end of argument.

Quoted for truth.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Here you go! This book contains enough gun fact that his head will explode!!!

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

 

[yankeerose]

I live in he DC area and am surrounded by these types of idiots. What is this person going to do if someone points a gun at him? He will hide behind YOU!!!! These types of people do not want anyone to have any rights or freedoms, but they will use you to protect them and their live, whether you have a weapon on you or not..... Take him to the ghetto and drop his ass off....

 

[Numenor]

Arguing with a liberal on any subject is a waste of time. The liberal is right you are wrong, end of argument.

The same can be said of conservatives.

I personally do not regard myself as either... unless you mean the old definition of conservative; keep the government out of my/anyone's business.

The modern conservative definition with all it's moral platitudes and stances is just as bad as the liberal definition.

 

[CubexDE]

Just let him know that you will respect his views by not using your gun to defend him if he is attacked.

 

[bigsranch]

I'm sad that Texas is one of the few states with NO open carry (except on one's own property or business). Back in the Old West, you were considered a coward if you concealed your gun. And, face it, the only reason why concealed carry is more common than open carry is that liberals wet their pants at the sight of a gun. They're okay, though, as long as they can't see it.

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

The same can be said of conservatives.

I personally do not regard myself as either... unless you mean the old definition of conservative; keep the government out of my/anyone's business.

The modern conservative definition with all it's moral platitudes and stances is just as bad as the liberal definition.

The old definition of conservative has not changed, which is why I call myself a conservative. The Republican party has changed, moved to the left while the Democrats have moved way, far left. Of course I usually vote Republican because they are the closest to my ideals.

 

[Bob_M]

The Republican party has changed, moved to the left while the Democrats have moved way, far left.

This is so correct. The libby disease is spreading. :frown: