Robert Farago and his friends are continually pushing the unacceptable leap in logic that works something like this:
1. Right to life
2. Right to self-defense
3. Right to carry a handgun
The distance between points 2 and 3 is too much for me, but Robert slips it into every discussion as if it's just fine.
In response to the law in Wisconsin having been changed to eliminate any requirement of training before receiving the CCW permit, Robert had this to say and Eugene let him get away with it.
Admittedly, shooting a gun is easy, and granted, most folks who apply for the concealed carry permit do far more training and preparation than any law would require, yet there are those who don't. Web sites like The Truth about Guns, which are wildly popular, continually browbeat their readers with the fear-driven message that their lives are in constant danger and guns are the answer. Privately, as in this telephone interview, Farago admits this is not true, but the Armed Intelligentsia commenting on his site all seem to agree carrying a gun is the only way to go."Actually, it's a pretty simple thing to pull out a gun, aim and shoot it," he insisted.
Some folks are influenced by this who are not trained or equipped with the basic coordination skills and/or mental wherewithal to handle a gun safely. They can get a concealed carry permit in places like Wisconsin with no training whatsoever.
Eugene Kane closed out the piece with this.
Please, Eugene, hopin' ain't gonna get it, man. Gun owners need to be screened carefully, CCW permit applicants even more so. We're past hoping that they get training and are intelligent enough to act responsibly. Some don't and some aren't. Here's my goal. And the way we're going to get there is this.I can agree with much of what Farago said about the right to bear arms, but I would also hope most concealed gun owners get proper training and attempt to be at least a little intelligent with their decisions.I can't help but think that would be a good thing for all of us.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Let's just say Farago is a poser who will do anything to drive traffic to his site.
ReplyDeleteHe's not really a "gun guy."
Doesn't a right to life mean that every human being is sacred and their life is valuable--even the one who is mugging you?
ReplyDeleteIf his life is worth less than the money in your pocket, that says that his life is not valuable.
Someone who truly believes in the sacredness of life would prefer non-lethal methods of self-defence to lethal ones. In fact, that is how the law regards self-defence--only the reasonable amount of force necessary to stop the threat--otherwise, one becomes the aggressor and is liable to criminal sanctions.
Some "pro-life" people are seeing the contradiction in allowing foeti a right to life, but not living human beings.
Especially if the living human beings are innocent children who find the gun, or tohers who die from "accidents".
If I have a right to self defense, how can I exercise that right? Does a strong young man have more right than someone with an injury, with arthitis, with weaker muscles? The point that we keep trying to make to you is that a handgun is an effective tool for exercising our right of self defense. I'm not saying that I have the right to pursue someone or to pull a gun on someone who annoys me or other such silliness. My right to self defense comes into play when another person is threatening my life.
ReplyDeleteLaci the Dog,
When someone threatens to kill me and demonstrates an ability to do so, that person has negated his own right to life. If it's a choice between the attacker and me, I choose myself every time.
Regarding the non-lethal methods of defense, I don't object to those, but I doubt their effectiveness. Yes, hand-to-hand combat training is a good skill to have, but that takes a lot of time, time that the average citizen doesn't necessarily have. Pepper spray might work, but I like more certainty than that.
The real question is which person do you sympathize with. Do you identify with the thug or with the innocent person being attacked?
The thug has made his choice. And don't tell me that he just wants my money, that he really won't hurt me. If he wants my money through theft or armed robbery, he is worth less than whatever money I have in my pocket.
This:
ReplyDelete"If he wants my money through theft or armed robbery, he is worth less than whatever money I have in my pocket.
November 11, 2011 4:31 PM"
is just plain stupid. You are saying that if someone tries to rob you of your spare change that their life should be forfeit. Talk about fucked-up moral compasses.
Greg, If I were king, you would have no "right" to own a gun, but that wouldn't mean you can't have one. You'd just have to pass the mental health and criminal screening and have to qualify with lots of testing and training requirements.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, in my world about half of you guys would still have guns. And the half we disarm would include many many characters who would, if we allowed them to, fuck up at some point in the future.
Greg wrote
ReplyDelete"If I have a right to self defense, how can I exercise that right?"
1. You can get a cell phone and use it proactively, including photos of any crime and/or perpetrator, as well as calling for assistance of all kinds in all kinds of crisis not only criminal ones.
2. The way that the people at OWS do it - block patrols, or other forms of unarmed mutual aid.
3. Non-lethal means of self-defense.
self-defence is not a right--it is a mitigating defence under common law.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what Blackstone said.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"If he wants my money through theft or armed robbery, he is worth less than whatever money I have in my pocket."
I thought you wrote that you taught literature. Are you unfamiliar with the themes of Les Miserables, arguably the greatest novel of the 19th century?
It is taught in English classes, there have been many excellent translations for over a hundred years.
Shame on you for judging another human being without knowing anything of their circumstances or degree of desperation. There is no moral justification for someone being executed by you for something small. That it not justice that is disproportionate vengeance. It doesn't even comply with the Christian -judeo premise of justice of an eye for an eye, where the punishment is supposed to be proportional not greater. That is retributive justice; we practice reparative justice, which is more fair and less authoritarian the retributive justice.
Most of all it is vigilante justice not the rule of law. It becomes a matter of nothing more than who has the most brute force. That is conduct contrary to society-any society.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIf someone is threatening my life, that person has given up his right to life. I don't shoot the homeless person holding a cardboard sign. But if a mugger threatens violence if I don't give up my money, I will respond.
Laci the Dog,
We obviously have a different understanding of rights. I say that I have a right to defend myself, in proportion to the attack being made. If I'm attacked with words, I respond with words. If someone is threatening my life, I have the right to use lethal force to save my life.
Mikeb302000,
Again, you would disarm 40,000,000 Americans. On what basis would you do this? You're making a sweeping generalization from a few bad actors.
Also, since you have expressed support for the Occupy Any Street crowd, can't you see that your system would disproportionately affect people of limited means? The wealthy are the only ones who would have the time and money to pass your scheme.
Yes, Greg,but you opinion of the right is not the legal one.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, quite a few US jurisdictions have changed the doctrine of self-defence to allow armed self-defence out of proportion to the threat.
Of course, I don't know how physically fit you are, Greg, but there is the possibility that your attacker could grab your weapon from you and use it against you.
Greg,your arguments about "disarming 40,000,000 Americans" and saying that our position disproportionately affect people of limited means are from emotion rather than logic. Very few defensive gun uses are actually made.
Not to mention that effective armed self-defence is far more expensive than other methods. One needs to practise marksmanship to be effective: Otherwise one is a risk to society.
And that practise costs quite a bit of money.
There are much more effective method of crime prevention that are far more beneficial to society than arming the populace.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYes, many states are correctly passing Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. As I've said before, the trend is in the direction that I like.
Regarding the 40,000,000, I was addressing Mikeb302000. So:
Mikeb302000,
Let me remind you of what you said:
"If I were king. . ."
That's exactly the point. Your side believes in the Divine Right of Gun Grabbers, while mine believes in individual choice.
Cut out all the insults and dismissals, and the arguments here come down to just that point. Your side wants to save us in spite of ourselves. My side believes in letting everyone choose and in holding those who choose evil accountable.
I don't think that you're an idiot for holding your position. Your model works well in many countries. China and Iran, for example. I'm not being facetious here. Your model of a society is a grave threat to the American system, and it may win. But will you agree with me that what is right doesn't always come out victorious?
By the way, you told me not to be thin skinned. On occasion, I've taught algebra in inner-city high schools. The comments here wouldn't even make the farm team in the insult league.
Greg, yes, as a criminal defence lawyer, I think the current trend in self-defence is wonderful as well. It makes it harder for the prosecution to prove a crime.
ReplyDeleteIn some case, it allows the criminal to be exonerated.
Anything which gets criminal back on the streets is great by me.
Greg, I'm glad you have no idea of what you are talking about!
"That's exactly the point. Your side believes in the Divine Right of Gun Grabbers, while mine believes in individual choice.
ReplyDeleteCut out all the insults and dismissals, and the arguments here come down to just that point."
Bullfuckingshit.
Please take your time and go through the archives to find the comments that I've made suggesting that gunz should be confiscated. And while you're doing that, check to see when Laci The Dog, dog gone or Mikeb302000 made such comments.
You make an extraordinary claim without a fucking shred of evidence.
"Your model of a society is a grave threat to the American system, and it may win. But will you agree with me that what is right doesn't always come out victorious?"
ReplyDeleteWTF does that even mean?
quite frankly, Greg has no fucking idea what he is talking about, Democommie.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Republicanism made high moral demands on its citizens, in addition to entrusting them with the defense of their communities. For example, a citizen of a republic was expected to subordinate self-interest to the overarching good of the community.
He said "There's nothing fundamentally statist about the kind of militia service being described."
DOH!
Greg has no idea of what type of civic duties and obligations the founders envisioned in relation to the rights offered.
C'mon Greg, don't get picky with me now. My expression "if I were king" is in reference to some previous posts that got a lot of attention, you can look them up if you want. The point I'm making should be clear. I'm not talking about becoming a literal monarch, and you know it. I'm talking about when the country comes to its senses and the composition of the Supreme Court changes by just one vote.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'm not talking about disarming 40 million people in a sweeping effort of gun control. I'm talking about the many people who would not qualify to own guns if you guys were screened properly.
I say half, you say 40 million, but it would be done through proper channels with the kinds of background checks and mental health screening we should already have in place but don't because of people like you.
Your side believes in the Divine Right of Gun Grabbers, while mine believes in individual choice.
ReplyDeleteUhm........No, clearly you do not read for comprehension.
1. We don't use God to justify our rights; that would be the ignorant gun loons. You won't find us citing Christ, Buddha, or Odin for our position. That is exclusively the pro-gun lunatics.
2. We are not Gun Grabbers; rather we argue and advocate for sane weapons restrictions that result in less gun violence and less gun crime.
3. Not only do we not suggest confiscation of firearms, we debunk the fear mongering fraud from the 2nd Amendment crowd that falsely circulates fake documents to support the claims of confiscation.
The assertions of the gun nuts are ill researched, ill conceived and utterly lack critical thinking to support it.
MikeB used the expression "if I were king"; since we do not live in a monarchy, or even a minarchy (Peter Sellers pronunciation joke / play on a real poli-sci term) this was clearly a metaphor, a hypothetical phrase equivalent to 'what I wish'.
ReplyDeleteIf Greg cannot correctly read that he would appear to be incompetent to teach literature to older students, or even finger painting to little kids.
His response reflects a continuing display of intellectual dishonesty.
WWOD? (What woudl Odin do?)
Please show me where I've insisted that God is the source of my rights. I've said that we are born with rights. For someone who believes that a divine being creates each one of us, that implies a divine origin, but I don't go that far. I just said that our rights are natural, not given to us by our society. Certainly, our society aides in protecting our rights, but that isn't the same as giving them to us.
ReplyDeleteNow, it may be that you've forgotten, but Mikeb302000 has said several times that he would deny firearms to half of the current owners. Was that meant as an impractical wish or as a goal? Such a statement implies a desire to confiscate guns. Gun registration would make confiscation from law-abiding citizens much easier.
You argue for restricted ownership and for fewer guns, but you're not gun grabbers? And you say that I have no reasoning skills. . .
The "If I were king. . ." line is indicative of your attitude. If you had absolute power, here's what you'd do. You'd take away choice from the rest of us. But at heart, you're not a gun grabber. I suppose that you just want me to trust that you'll protect any rights that I hand over to you?
Democommie,
Your comments don't say anything, once all the foul language is removed.
And Dog Gone, since you asked, here's what Odin would do:
ReplyDeleteFrom the Havamal:
Let a man never stir on his road a step
without his weapons of war;
for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise
of a spear on the way without.
apparently Greg doesn't read well for comprehension.
ReplyDeleteEven Odin was speaking about going to war, not carrying weapons for personal defense from imaginary criminals or to boost his ego or his self-esteem or his masculinity.
Don't get nervous, Greg. I'm only talking about denying gun rights to the dangerous and unfit. Maybe that would turn out to be only 30 million.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDelete"Democommie,
Your comments don't say anything, once all the foul language is removed.
November 13, 2011 7:40 PM"
Do you mean this one:
"That's exactly the point. Your side believes in the Divine Right of Gun Grabbers, while mine believes in individual choice.
Cut out all the insults and dismissals, and the arguments here come down to just that point."
Bullfuckingshit.
Please take your time and go through the archives to find the comments that I've made suggesting that gunz should be confiscated. And while you're doing that, check to see when Laci The Dog, dog gone or Mikeb302000 made such comments.
You make an extraordinary claim without a fucking shred of evidence.
November 12, 2011 10:39 PM"
which has "bullfuckingshit" and "fucking" in it?
or this one:
""Your model of a society is a grave threat to the American system, and it may win. But will you agree with me that what is right doesn't always come out victorious?"
WTF does that even mean?
November 12, 2011 10:41 PM"
which has "WTF" in it?
I'm only asking because I'm fairly certain that without those three colorful ango-saxon derived terms the comments would still say pretty much the same thing. IOW, you, like many other KKKonservatives get your knickers in a twist when you can't dig your way out of the oubliette of teh burnin' stoopit and start correcting syntax and looking for the "you shouldn't say, 'fuck', it makes you all unseriousy" police. You obviously don't know releavant law as well as you think you do and it's a fair guess on my part that you don't have a degree in psychology or sociology to go along with your degree in english.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000 has stated that he wants to see half of current gun owners lose their rights. How would that be put into reality without confiscation? Does he seriously believe that millions of gun owners will give up their guns voluntarily just because some bureaucrat or government shrink tells them to? He wants registration of guns. What would be the point of that, if not to keep a list of legal gun owners from whom guns can be confiscated in the future? That's what happened in England.
The form of society that is favored here is what we see in China or Iran--state control over the lives of individuals, with rewards given to those who play the game. It's not clear to me which model will rule during this century, and there's plenty of reason for concern over that question.
Mikeb302000 has stated that he wants to see half of current gun owners lose their rights. How would that be put into reality without confiscation?
ReplyDeleteThat would happen by simply depriving those who do not qualify under existing requirements - like those who do not pass the NCIS check (or wouldn't if their state of residence complied with it) didn't have firearms. It would reinstate assault weapon bans. And it would prevent felons in particular from regaining their gun rights (see today's post from the New York Times).
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhat you described would only deal with sales in the future. How does that address the some 80,000,000 current gun owners? Mikeb302000 said that he wants to cut the number of gun owners in half. We already have our guns. How can he achieve his dream without taking ours away?
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban was a ridiculous piece of fluff. It banned only cosmetic aspects of weapons that made gun grabbers nervous, and it created a nonsense definition of "assault weapon" that has no relationship to the terms used by knowledgeable people when speaking of firearms.
Attrition.
ReplyDeleteGreg, the way it has worked in most jurisdictions is that there is a requirement that firearms are licenced or legally disposed of (turned into police or sold to a dealer).
ReplyDeleteUsually,someone will be caught in the act of a crime and the unregistered and unlicenced firearm will result in a charge.
Otherwise, the guns remain untouched until either a firearm amnesty occurs, or a relative turns in the weapon.
Unless the police become aware of an unlicenced firearm, they usually don't go on house to house searches.
Reality check, Greg--how much money would it cost to go door to door, even with dogs that could sniff out a firearm, to arrest all the gun owners who, for whatever reason, fail to register their firearms.
I should add that one beneficiary of firearms amnesties is the REME Museum of Technology. They were given their pick of unusual weapons turned in.
As for the assault weapons ban--would you prefer that the 26 USC 5845 (b) defintion of a machinegun is used instead, classifying pretty much every semi-automatic rifle (and some semi-auto pistols) as machineguns and regulating them as such?
That would work for regulating "assault weapons"--especially semi-auto versions of most selective fire military weapons.
BATF would love to do that!
So I was right. You do want guns removed from our society. You don't want the civil war that would result from honest confiscation, so you're willing to be patient and arrest anyone who is revealed as an unlicensed gun owner.
ReplyDeleteIs that supposed to make me trust you? You might try wagging your tail more and barking less.
When it comes to the Assault Weapons Ban, I'd rather that the whole pile of rubbish be left in the past, just like Prohibition. A bad idea is a bad idea and shouldn't be repeated. I'd also like to the the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act thrown out. I'll bide my time, though, since there are moves in Congress to do just that.
So you're showing us what you really want. A soft system of confiscation that merely arrests gun owners when they're revealed. Afraid of the civil war that would result from a more active approach?
ReplyDeleteYou really should wag your tail more and bark less.
When it comes to nonsense like the Assault Weapons Ban--and the National Firearms Act (1934) and Gun Control Act (1968)--I'd like to see all of that scrapped. You should learn the lesson of Prohibition. Banning an object only pisses people off.
Fortunately, there are moves in Congress to get rid of those, and I'm looking forward to it.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteSorry about the double posting. Something funny happened when I submitted the comment. You don't have to publish this comment, and I'd have no objection to you deleting one of the duplicates.
Greg, Since you're asking exactly how my plan would be implemented, does that mean you've capitulated? Do you agree it would be best for all and now you want the nuts and bolts?
ReplyDeleteIf not, don't jerk me around with questions like what concrete measures would I suggest to deal with the 80 million.
You see, if something's right and good, and we agree on that, only then do we talk about it's implementation.
If we can't agree on what's right, there's no point, unless you just want to waste my time and divert the argument.
The argument is what is right about qualifying for gun ownership and CCW permits.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteNo, I haven't given in to your position. I want to know what methods you advocate for violating my rights. I want to know what proposals I need to oppose in the future.
"The form of society that is favored here is what we see in China or Iran--state control over the lives of individuals, with rewards given to those who play the game. It's not clear to me which model will rule during this century, and there's plenty of reason for concern over that question.
ReplyDeleteNovember 14, 2011 4:36 PM"
You are fucking delusional, really, you need some help.
We regulate literally the ownership and use of literally thousands of products in this country. It doesn't mean that they don't get misused. It means that those who misuse them, when charged with a crime under the releavant statute, are fined or imprisoned upon conviction.
Think about anything from changing your oil over a storm drain to dumping 55 gallon drums of Malathion or other toxins into a public aquifer--both of these things happen. Do the perpetrators always get caught or even observed? No. Do they always get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Again, no. Does that mean we should just shitcan the regulations and laws that govern activities that we engage in during our everyday lives? I'll help you out here, the answer is, again, no.
You and your gunzloonz pals have concocted a fairytale (well, more of a horror story really) about all of the terrible things that happen to people who can't defend themselves. You say that just the thought that someone might have a gun will deter criminals, but then you hedge your bet by saying that if somebody is gonna be a perp (this being knowable, only to you, by some arcane psychic mechanism) you will, BY GOD, shoot that lowlife down like a mad dog? You and your friends need psychiatric counselling, not more guns.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI don't recall any Constitutional right to insecticide, nor do I see that as a natural right. Insecticide, by its nature, is a thing that has mass effects. But I can buy it at my local hardware store, since there are legitimate uses for it.
But really, you're the one who rants and curses at everything you disagree with. Between the two of us, who has the problem with rage?