The attack on self defense

[TurtleDude]

Nice article I saw at another site. its thought provoking and it analyzes the mind set of those who think you should outsource your safety to public servants

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/barry-loberfeld/the-attack-on-self-defense/

The great irony: The threat of gun prohibition is the argument against gun prohibition. In other words, it is precisely because a firearm in the hands of a conscientious citizen is so effective in protecting the inalienable rights of personal security and personal freedom that it is feared by sociopaths and socialists alike. That is the life-or-death issue that the gun debate will always be about.

 

[X Factor]

Hopefully it can defend itself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hopefully it can defend itself.

droll :mrgreen:

 

[X Factor]

droll :mrgreen:

Couldn't resist. :mrgreen:

 

[Goshin]

Nice article I saw at another site. its thought provoking and it analyzes the mind set of those who think you should outsource your safety to public servants

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/barry-loberfeld/the-attack-on-self-defense/

The great irony: The threat of gun prohibition is the argument against gun prohibition. In other words, it is precisely because a firearm in the hands of a conscientious citizen is so effective in protecting the inalienable rights of personal security and personal freedom that it is feared by sociopaths and socialists alike. That is the life-or-death issue that the gun debate will always be about.

Pretty good article.

There is a fundamental divide between the pro-gun and anti-gun factions, and it is a very deep and elemental schism: one mentality that advocates and extols the virtue of self-reliance, and another that dreads, fears and demonizes it. One that tends to believe the majority have at least a modicum of decency, self-restraint and common sense; another that thinks "the common herd" are walking time bombs of uncontrolled impulses and thoughtless emotional responses, in need of an intellectual elite to control them. One group turns first to their self to solve problems, and tends to turn to government only as a last resort; the other turns to government as a preferred solution to any problem and considers individual handling of problems the epitome of selfishness and the root of all evil.


The two sides find it very hard to even see each other clearly, let alone understand one another... any sort of meeting of the minds is a rare thing and unlikely on a large scale.

 

[TurtleDude]

Pretty good article.

There is a fundamental divide between the pro-gun and anti-gun factions, and it is a very deep and elemental schism: one mentality that advocates and extols the virtue of self-reliance, and another that dreads, fears and demonizes it. One that tends to believe the majority have at least a modicum of decency, self-restraint and common sense; another that thinks "the common herd" are walking time bombs of uncontrolled impulses and thoughtless emotional responses, in need of an intellectual elite to control them. One group turns first to their self to solve problems, and tends to turn to government only as a last resort; the other turns to government as a preferred solution to any problem and considers individual handling of problems the epitome of selfishness and the root of all evil.


The two sides find it very hard to even see each other clearly, let alone understand one another... any sort of meeting of the minds is a rare thing and unlikely on a large scale.

I note another subcategory of your comment

most of us on the pro freedom, personal responsibility side of the aisle don't believe in group guilt, group rights etc. we also see those who rape, rob and steal as scumbags and don't waste much time worrying about a felon who gets mozambiqued trying to jack someone's car or molest some armed homeowner's 9 year old child. The anti self defense crowd, on the other hand, is the bastion of group rights, group guilt and the removal of personal responsibility. that group is reticent to blame a rapist or home invader for his predatory ways: rather he is the victim of society and has been driven to engage in sociopathic behavior by an unjust environment. Thus, to make a criminal responsible in the sense of him being shot for doing something that justifies shooting him, is anathema to this crowd.

 

[Goshin]

I note another subcategory of your comment

most of us on the pro freedom, personal responsibility side of the aisle don't believe in group guilt, group rights etc. we also see those who rape, rob and steal as scumbags and don't waste much time worrying about a felon who gets mozambiqued trying to jack someone's car or molest some armed homeowner's 9 year old child. The anti self defense crowd, on the other hand, is the bastion of group rights, group guilt and the removal of personal responsibility. that group is reticent to blame a rapist or home invader for his predatory ways: rather he is the victim of society and has been driven to engage in sociopathic behavior by an unjust environment. Thus, to make a criminal responsible in the sense of him being shot for doing something that justifies shooting him, is anathema to this crowd.

Yeah, you have a point: there is a lot of that mentality on the anti- side. Some even seem to think certain individuals practically have a RIGHT to steal from certain others because their "group" is in the "victimized" category.

Whereas people who think more like us are actually more prone to SEE people AS individual actors... and to see the robber as the wrongdoer (regardless of his "society is to blame" excuses) and the robber's target as the victimized party who was just doing what any sensible individual would do: protecting their self and property by such means as necessary.

To me that is so self-evident I struggled for years to comprehend how someone could possibly see it otherwise.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, you have a point: there is a lot of that mentality on the anti- side. Some even seem to think certain individuals practically have a RIGHT to steal from certain others because their "group" is in the "victimized" category.

Whereas people who think more like us are actually more prone to SEE people AS individual actors... and to see the robber as the wrongdoer (regardless of his "society is to blame" excuses) and the robber's target as the victimized party who was just doing what any sensible individual would do: protecting their self and property by such means as necessary.

To me that is so self-evident I struggled for years to comprehend how someone could possibly see it otherwise.

when I was mugged 30 years ago, one of the mopes (the one not shot) was put in a jail cell with a boy being held for DUI. THe mope noted they (him and his incapacitated confederate) thought I was a pizza delivery guy they had called to mug. I was carrying groceries and wearing my varsity college warmup which looked -to two stoned mopes-to be a delivery uniform. a stoner hippy chick was interviewed on the news about the shooting and she made some comment that since I was a rich graduate student, it was wrong for me to shoot an asshole since he was merely trying to get some money from me. This led to the detective who conducted the investigation to ask her would she feel differently if one of the mopes was merely looking for some "loving" and had tried to have forced intercourse with her.

but that is the mindset of many of the anti self defense types. they have sort of an acid-tripped mutated Robin Hood mindset where they are supporting thieves to steal from the "rich" without getting their thieving asses blown away doing it

 

[Goshin]

Yeah, you have a point: there is a lot of that mentality on the anti- side. Some even seem to think certain individuals practically have a RIGHT to steal from certain others because their "group" is in the "victimized" category.

Whereas people who think more like us are actually more prone to SEE people AS individual actors... and to see the robber as the wrongdoer (regardless of his "society is to blame" excuses) and the robber's target as the victimized party who was just doing what any sensible individual would do: protecting their self and property by such means as necessary.

To me that is so self-evident I struggled for years to comprehend how someone could possibly see it otherwise.

Now to expand on that: It is not to say that things like poverty and lack of education and so on are not massively contributing factors to criminality: they are. Nor would I proclaim that every American citizen has the exact same opportunity as every other, as it is patently and clearly not so... at least not pragmatically, IRL where the rubber meets the road. Generational poverty and environments steeped in criminality put a terrible stamp on those who grow up in such situations.

I may well depart from Turtle's view in saying that I also find no problem with attempting to address those issues on a societal level; after all society has a vested interest in making its members productive rather than criminal or parasitic. However I also say we've done a LOT already and there comes a point where people have to put on their boots and make an individual effort as well. We could do far better with streamlining and rationalizing the whole social welfare system without necessarily throwing more money at it, but that's another topic really.

When an individual comes to the point where he decides to take a weapon and go out and "get money!" with it by taking it from others, he's crossed a line. Even if he doesn't intend to actually kill anyone it may still happen, once he decides he's willing to use force to take from others. Ditto those who think they have some kind of excuse for "taking revenge on society" by inflicting pain and humiliation on other people via assault or rape... they've crossed a line. They're now a cancer on society and if they can't be quickly cured then they need to be quickly removed. No "group victimization" label is adequate excuse for this level of anti-social behavior.

 

[X Factor]

when I was mugged 30 years ago, one of the mopes (the one not shot) was put in a jail cell with a boy being held for DUI. THe mope noted they (him and his incapacitated confederate) thought I was a pizza delivery guy they had called to mug. I was carrying groceries and wearing my varsity college warmup which looked -to two stoned mopes-to be a delivery uniform. a stoner hippy chick was interviewed on the news about the shooting and she made some comment that since I was a rich graduate student, it was wrong for me to shoot an asshole since he was merely trying to get some money from me. This led to the detective who conducted the investigation to ask her would she feel differently if one of the mopes was merely looking for some "loving" and had tried to have forced intercourse with her.

but that is the mindset of many of the anti self defense types. they have sort of an acid-tripped mutated Robin Hood mindset where they are supporting thieves to steal from the "rich" without getting their thieving asses blown away doing it

You heartless bastard. This is the appropriate compassionate response to being mugged.

Last weekend, my housemate and I were mugged at gunpoint while walking home from Dupont Circle. The entire incident lasted under a minute, as I was forced to the floor, handed over my phone and was patted down.

***snip***

Year after year, Washington, D.C., is ranked among the most unequal cities in the country, with the wealthiest 5 percent earning an estimated 54 times more than the poorest 20 percent. According to the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, just under 20 percent of D.C. residents live below the poverty line.

What has been most startling to me, even more so than the incident itself, have been the reactions I’ve gotten. I kept hearing “thugs,” “criminals” and “bad people.” While I understand why one might jump to that conclusion, I don’t think this is fair.

Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. They wanted my stuff, not me. While I don’t know what exactly they needed the money for, I do know that I’ve never once had to think about going out on a Saturday night to mug people. I had never before seen a gun, let alone known where to get one. The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.

http://www.thehoya.com/i-was-mugged-and-i-understand-why/

Seriously, every once in awhile I'm reminded just how great the divide can sometimes be between the left and the right.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yeah, you have a point: there is a lot of that mentality on the anti- side. Some even seem to think certain individuals practically have a RIGHT to steal from certain others because their "group" is in the "victimized" category.

Whereas people who think more like us are actually more prone to SEE people AS individual actors... and to see the robber as the wrongdoer (regardless of his "society is to blame" excuses) and the robber's target as the victimized party who was just doing what any sensible individual would do: protecting their self and property by such means as necessary.

To me that is so self-evident I struggled for years to comprehend how someone could possibly see it otherwise.

I have run across the "you would take a life over property" argument so many times just here I have lost count. Multiple problems persist with that challenge, such as;
1) I don't know what the attacker's intentions are, it may not just be taking property, there could be even more malevolent intentions to follow.
2) It is MY property, things that I have worked very hard to obtain, this took time and my labor, and of course after paying all applicable state/local sales taxes and of course after my income tax. This is time and effort I can not get back.
3) For property that was gifted to me by family/friends, these are sentimental, even replacing them means nothing because that property was given from someone very important to me, and it has an intangible value. Some of those people are gone now, meaning the items they left to me are things I would absolutely fight to the death to hold. Even if it were a cheap money clip, or non-functional watch.
4) Allowing "preferred" groups, i.e. criminals, a status other than predator sets the worst possible precedent. Some incredible people have come from the worst circumstances possible and vice-versa.

 

[Serenity]

The two sides find it very hard to even see each other clearly, let alone understand one another... any sort of meeting of the minds is a rare thing and unlikely on a large scale.

That's not unsurprising when you consider that quite often the gun forum becomes entagled in a debate about guns in which the terms are at times being set by extremists on both sides.

 

[LaMidRighter]

That's not unsurprising when you consider that quite often the gun forum becomes entagled in a debate about guns in which the terms are at times being set by extremists on both sides.

The thing about extremism is really about the "eye of the beholder". For instance, I became a Libertarian because the Republicans just weren't cutting it, though I have problems with some Libertarians they are much closer to the constitution. I don't want extreme liberty in the form of anarchy, but also certainly don't want an extreme state that has all the power it could ever want. With the gun argument, sure, if taken to the extreme it could get pretty silly, but taken to the extreme of wanting to ban them based on emotions is beyond silly.

Now, to bring it to guns, weapons in general, and self defense. There are places I can agree with people who are reasonable and want a modicum of public safety, there are caveats included such as prohibitions of lifetime bans, but, if something finds a balance between reason and safety I at least will be all ears.

 

[haymarket]

I read the article. What "attack on self defense" is it supposedly discussing? The entire article seems to be a reaction to the personal comments from a lady named Barbara Keller who wrote an article in a magazine over twenty years ago.

And this is what constitutes THE ATTACK ON SELF DEFENSE? Not only is that title simply incorrect - it is intentionally inflammatory and hyperbolic designed to whip up the True Believers with all the usual attendant attacks on liberals and other identified enemies.

It is ridiculous in the extreme and serves no purpose other than to reinforce the opinion of gun lobby supporters giving them ample opportunity to rant and rave and throw darts at their ideological enemies.

I guess then it fits in rather excellently here in a gun thread.

 

[TurtleDude]

You heartless bastard. This is the appropriate compassionate response to being mugged.



The Hoya – Georgetown University's Newspaper of Record Since 1920I Was Mugged, and I Understand Why - The Hoya - Georgetown University's Newspaper of Record Since 1920

Seriously, every once in awhile I'm reminded just how great the divide can sometimes be between the left and the right.

the mugger did the gene pool a disservice

and I wonder what that tool would have written if the mugger had ass-raped him? get used to it-or buy some lubricant to keep on hand for the next "intrusion"

 

[TurtleDude]

I read the article. What "attack on self defense" is it supposedly discussing? The entire article seems to be a reaction to the personal comments from a lady named Barbara Keller who wrote an article in a magazine over twenty years ago.

And this is what constitutes THE ATTACK ON SELF DEFENSE? Not only is that title simply incorrect - it is intentionally inflammatory and hyperbolic designed to whip up the True Believers with all the usual attendant attacks on liberals and other identified enemies.

It is ridiculous in the extreme and serves no purpose other than to reinforce the opinion of gun lobby supporters giving them ample opportunity to rant and rave and throw darts at their ideological enemies.

I guess then it fits in rather excellently here in a gun thread.

do you have a point? the fact is-as illustrated by that Idiot from Georgetown, the left is anti self defense and seeks ti disarm good people. and the anti gun side on this board is always spewing lies and dishonesty. for example-claiming that its CRIME they want to control

 

[haymarket]

do you have a point? the fact is-as illustrated by that Idiot from Georgetown, the left is anti self defense and seeks ti disarm good people. and the anti gun side on this board is always spewing lies and dishonesty. for example-claiming that its CRIME they want to control

YES and it was made quite clearly in my post. When all the gun lobby sycophants can do is come up with some lady from over 20 years ago who simply said in a magazine that 99%of Americans have long consigned to the trash heap she wants to make some guns harder to get - that just reeks of desperation to stir the drink and agitate the true believers into a froth.

And this constitutes AN ATTACK ON SELF DEFENSE?!?!?!?!? How silly. :roll::doh

Of course, pointless agitation and getting the believers to make fervent statements of belief and express hate to those not like them is what most of these gun threads are all about in the first place so this nonsense fits right in.

And that is the point.

 

[TurtleDude]

YES and it was made quite clearly in my post. When all the gun lobby sycophants can do is come up with some lady from over 20 years ago who simply said in a magazine that 99%of Americans have long consigned to the trash heap she wants to make some guns harder to get - that just reeks of desperation to stir the drink and agitate the true believers into a froth.

And this constitutes AN ATTACK ON SELF DEFENSE?!?!?!?!? How silly. :roll::doh

Of course, pointless agitation and getting the believers to make fervent statements of belief and express hate to those not like them is what most of these gun threads are all about in the first place so this nonsense fits right in.

And that is the point.

Unlike the anti gun sheeple, the gun lobby doesn't tend to have "sycophants" one of the hallmarks of being a supporter of the correct interpretation of the 2A is a natural craving of independence and self reliance. A mindset that is hostile and frightening to the anti-gun sheepl

 

[haymarket]

Unlike the anti gun sheeple, the gun lobby doesn't tend to have "sycophants"

The NRA proves you wrong.

Many Congressman prove you wrong.

Many state legislators prove you wrong.

Some of the extremists on this very site proves you wrong.

one of the hallmarks of being a supporter of the correct interpretation of the 2A is a natural craving of independence and self reliance

And of course as one if filled in as to the party line "correct interpretation" one then marches in lockstep with all the other like minded believers - all of course pretending to express their "independence and self reliance". :roll::doh Its laughable. :lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

The NRA proves you wrong.

Many Congressman prove you wrong.

Many state legislators prove you wrong.

Some of the extremists on this very site proves you wrong.



And of course as one if filled in as to the party line "correct interpretation" one then marches in lockstep with all the other like minded believers - all of course pretending to express their "independence and self reliance". :roll::doh Its laughable. :lamo

yeah I figured a anti gun stalwart would call anyone who actually supports the 2A as it was intended to be interpreted (Clue-SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was NOT intended to permit or even AUTHORIZE all sorts of infringements) a sycophant

projection is what the left often does-assumes we are lock step sheeple just like the leftist-collectivists are

 

[haymarket]

yeah I figured a anti gun stalwart would call anyone who actually supports the 2A as it was intended to be interpreted (Clue-SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was NOT intended to permit or even AUTHORIZE all sorts of infringements) a sycophant

projection is what the left often does-assumes we are lock step sheeple just like the leftist-collectivists are

The OP is what is guilty of projection. And that rather obvious point went a country mile over your head.

But do tell us how the comments of a woman over 20 years ago constitutes some sort of attack on people being able to defend themselves overt decades later.

This should be good.

 

[TurtleDude]

The OP is what is guilty of projection. And that rather obvious point went a country mile over your head.

But do tell us how the comments of a woman over 20 years ago constitutes some sort of attack on people being able to defend themselves overt decades later.

This should be good.

If you tell honest citizens that they cannot have the same defensive weapons our "civic leaders" and "wise bureaucrats" have determined are MOST suitable for our CIVILIAN police agencies for SELF DEFENSE in an urban civilian environment, you are opposed to our citizens having an effective right of self defense

Do you know anyone who has such a anti self defense mindset Haymarket?

 

[blackjack50]

If you tell honest citizens that they cannot have the same defensive weapons our "civic leaders" and "wise bureaucrats" have determined are MOST suitable for our CIVILIAN police agencies for SELF DEFENSE in an urban civilian environment, you are opposed to our citizens having an effective right of self defense

Do you know anyone who has such a anti self defense mindset Haymarket?

I would go one step farther, how many of those politicians have made it ok for them to be defended by those same weapons? Hell...their rich contributors and propagandists get the same protection too. Interesting how that works huh?

 

[haymarket]

If you tell honest citizens that they cannot have the same defensive weapons our "civic leaders" and "wise bureaucrats" have determined are MOST suitable for our CIVILIAN police agencies for SELF DEFENSE in an urban civilian environment, you are opposed to our citizens having an effective right of self defense

Do you know anyone who has such a anti self defense mindset Haymarket?

So in the world of the extremist the implication of that statement is that only weapons used by the police and military can be used defend a person and all others - all the thousands of others - simply cannot be used for self defense?

Johnny Depp in ALICE made much more sense that that sort of assertion.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would go one step farther, how many of those politicians have made it ok for them to be defended by those same weapons? Hell...their rich contributors and propagandists get the same protection too. Interesting how that works huh?

no politician-be he president, pope, senator, mayor or state rep-should be entitled to guards carrying weapons that the rest of us cannot freely own