The only solid evidence in this conflict has been found in Article XI of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion".
If someone could please release any contradictory evidence (fact, not 'truth'), it would be helpful. Why is it that no factual evidence has surfaced in support of this 'Christian nation' argument?
Just wondering...and waiting.
First: “JohnnyDefense, "increasingly worried majority" because we, having more than one issue on the plate -- a couple of wars in case you hadn't noticed, an economy about to plunge into depression, almost 20 percent of people out of work and the rest facing layoffs, not to mention global problems like climate change -- can't afford to contribute as much as you one-issue guys to crooked politicians (including the US Supreme Court, which now accepts contributions to favorite causes) and sway them as you do”
Let me please point out that it was “Admiral Ackbar” who responded to your “increasingly worried majority”, not me; but that's alright.
Second, in regards to the “increasingly worried majority”, you refer to this as if it actually exists; which of course, if it DID EXIST, then you and your MAJORITY would already be in charge. It's real simple: when the MAJORITY votes for something, it PASSES. That's how a majority works Jake.
Third: “a couple of wars in case you hadn't noticed”...really? I dont' see any WARS. What you describe is referred to as a military engagement, not a war. Only CONGRESS can declare war Jake (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution. Something else you missed in school.)
Fourth: “an economy about to plunge into depression” Jake, we've already plunged. We're there. Ground Zero.
Fifth: “...almost 20 percent of people out of work, and the rest facing layoffs”. Let's break this down into its two parts. There is currently (as of this writing) about 11-12% of people unemployed. That's about as “close to 20 percent” as you are to go out and buy a firearm. Second part - “...and the rest facing layoffs” implies that when the rest of the employed people in America get layed off, the only people to survive will be those who are business owners, and those who do not need to work to earn a living.
So, since this is your scenerio Jake, I have one question: Who exactly is going to run the massive logistics of this country? Do you really think that say, Warren Buffet or Bill Gates is going to drive tractor-trailers across the country, delivering all the perishable and non-perishable items that people consume on a daily basis? Who is going to run the factories? You can kiss the government goodbye, because I seriously doubt there will be ANY politicians around who will work for FREE. Sounds like a great scenario Jake.
Sixth: “...global problems like climate change” I don't even think I'm going to touch on this one Jake. But I can tell you that the issue is unresolved (even though you believe otherwise), simply because there are just as many scientific studies that refute the ever growing list of unscientific studies that supported climate change to begin with. Not to mention “Climate-gate”.
So let's say for a moment that all of this is true, and your ideas of the country come to pass. I would think that it would be even MORE beneficial to own firearms, simply due to the influx of looters and mobs alone. With no police or military to protect you (remember, they were laid off), who is going to save you from certain doom at the hands of these roving bands of criminals Jake? Certainly not me.
Seventh: “Yes, you could put a sign up on our place and you know what, we don't have guns on our property that are what most criminals are looking for when they break and enter; they don't want our piddly belongings or us.”
Ok, give me your address, and I'll have that sign made for you right away. I am NOT kidding. It's nice to know that criminals are only interested in stealing guns, and not “piddly belongings”. With all the burglaries I've seen in-progress, I have not seen a SINGLE GUN carried out of a building by the burglars. Out of all the robberies, not a SINGLE GUN even asked for from the victims. I would really love to see that story in the news Jake: “Burglars break into homes, steal only guns; all other valuable possessions untouched.”...or “Robbers hold up people at Reid Park – Demand Guns – Victims Keep Their Cash and Valuables”. Too bad this kind of 'selective' crime only happens in your very narrow mind. If it were real, then I guess I wouldn't need a gun after all, right? Oh wait – one last thing...what about rape, murder, white collar crimes, sex crimes...please Jake, do tell what guns have to do with those crimes?
Eighth: “Put up a sign on your place that says you're armed and I'd give you five to one you'd be more likely than me to be dead within the year. Of course it matters if you've drugs on the premises, which I'm not saying you have, but plenty of gun fanciers do. They're defending their right to be targets. “
I do have a sign Jake. And it's been longer than a year. You lose. I'm still alive. Too bad.
So I take it that you are implying that the majority of gun owners also keep drugs at their house? Could you PLEASE provide the empirical research data on that statement? Pretty please? With sugar on top? Oh wait, I forgot. This, again, only exists in YOUR MIND.
I'm beginning to think we need to revisit that definition of “paranoia”.
Ninth: “Here's an interesting article from Newsweek reprinted in Daily Beast, "2,405 Shot Dead Since Tucson," meaning the assassination attempt on Gabby Giffords and her friends with the now-famous Glock with extended magazines.”
Yes, I'm sure it's interesting Jake; but it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC STUDY. In case you haven't noticed yet, most media is BIASED in some way. It's nice that you choose to look at only that information that supports your delusions.
But just in case, exactly how many of those “2,405 Shot Dead Since Tucson” were criminals in the act? How many of those were killed by police officers in the line-of-duty? How many of those were killed in self defense? Let's see those numbers Jake. I'd bet 10 to 1 that “Newsweek” didn't publish that; and since you didn't provide your source, then of course we can't say either way.
Side note here: In the article from the Daily Beast that is quoted above, it says “Over the last two decades, the pro-gun lobby has outspent gun-control forces by a factor of 20 to 1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; in 2008 alone, the NRA and its allies shelled out $2.4 million, or 41 times what the other side was able to spend.”
Let's read between the lines here Jake. If the gun lobby was able to spend 41 times MORE than the anti-gun lobby, then which side is MOST LIKELY the MAJORITY? Hmm...tough one huh?
Ok, back to your quoted article:
There's something REALLY important missing from your little news article Jake. VERIFIYABLE FACT. Where are the studies to support those numbers? I'll give you a hint: they're not in the article. Go ahead, read it again. NOT THERE. Since that's the case, then I guess if I said that 4,403 people were killed by rogue soft drinks since the Tucson shooting, then you'd believe me right? Because after all, it's in print, so it MUST BE TRUE.
You might want to look up the word “gullible” Jake. It applies to you.
Ok, on to the next article. It quotes the FBI crime statistics from 2009. Finally we're getting some ACTUAL scientific data.
Here's what you said about it: “Based on 2009's figures, we must be entering the hurricane zone of shootings, as in that year 9,146 were murdered by firearms (per The Guardian, Jan 10, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/20…). Arizona, which is admittedly not at the top of the list for murder by gun, nevertheless in 2009 toted up 197 firearms murders, 60.% of all murders in the state, or 2.99 murders per 100,000 residents. These numbers, which vary depending on the stats one reads, do not include accidental shootings and those not intended to harm but merely frighten -- and again, those that wounded but did not kill. Suicides were not included and there are plenty committed by people with guns. Nor do these figures include people murdered with guns but whose bodies were taken from the crime scene, as so often happens in drug wars.”
Now, before I go any further, I have something to add from the SAME FBI crime statistics (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/…
Please read VERY carefully Jake:
Under the paragraph titled “Data Collection” you will find these words:
“Justifiable homicide—Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:
The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are TABULATED SEPARATLY FROM MURDER AND NONNEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER.” [my emphasis]
What does this mean Jake? It means that the statistics you quoted ONLY APPLY TO CRIMINAL ACTS OF MURDER; it does NOT apply to justifiable SELF DEFENSE.
I have to touch on one more thing before I move on; your statement: “Nor do these figures include people murdered with guns but whose bodies were taken from the crime scene, as so often happens in drug wars.” Let me ask you AGAIN Jake, where is the verifiable scientific data to back up your claim? And another question: If the bodies are taken from the crime scene, then how does anyone but the criminal know that there was a body to begin with? Habeas Corpus Jake. Show me the body!
I was unsuccessful after many attempts to read the article in the Economist, so I cannot comment on it...YET. I'll get back to this at a future date.
Eleventh: “In our state, hundreds die each year, are murdered, with firearms. Others are maimed and traumatized. Others are just OCD having let firearm fetishes become a sort of addiction; that's not good. “
Once again, where is the scientific data to back up your claims? And let me point out AGAIN that murder IS NOT justifiable, whereas self defense IS JUSTIFIABLE. I would be happy to point you to the applicable law in Title 13, Arizona Revised Statutes if you care to read it over.
“Others are just OCD having let firearm fetishes become a sort of addiction...”
And you studied psychology where exactly? Let me guess, online magazines? Could you PLEASE point out WHERE in the DSM-V, or even any subsequent edition, it says that OCD, fetishism, and addiction are related to each other, and are manifested together, especially in gun owners. I'll be waiting for your answer on this one, since this wasn't covered in my college psychology classes.
Twelfth: “...And what good does this massive investment of Americans' shrinking discretionary incomes produce? Still waiting for a convincing answer. It prevents a dictatorship from happening by force? The gun-owners of America have a little surprise coming: if the Tea Party prevails and we end up with a fascist regime, especially if there is an incident threatening those in power, you are going to see your guns confiscated quicker than you can draw. It's happened that way in every fascist regime. First the extremists encourage strife and fear to gain power, then they use that chaos as an excuse to come down hard once they're in charge. Personal weaponry is the first thing to go.”
You might not want to begin a paragraph with an ellipsis Jake. Just saying.
Ok, let's start this one with another definition:
Fascism: “a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc.”
(Source: http://www.yourdictionary.com/fascism Def. 2)
Dictatorship: “A dictatorship is a government by a single person or group who holds unrestrained authority in using the powers and resources of the state, is not bound by any fixed legal or constitutional rules and whose governance does not answer to the general population or their elected representatives. It is a government that does not allow a nation to determine its own political direction by popular election.”
I don't know Jake. I think it would be kind of hard for the Tea Party to gain control and usurp the Constitution. After all, you can't have Federalism AND Fascism. They just don't work together...sorry.
“... especially if there is an incident threatening those in power, you are going to see your guns confiscated quicker than you can draw”
You mean like the democrats did during the Clinton administration? I guess they must have been super-secret fascist tea party advocates. Shh! Don't tell anyone Jake!
“First the extremists encourage strife and fear to gain power, then they use that chaos as an excuse to come down hard once they're in charge. Personal weaponry is the first thing to go.”
Once again, just like the democrats? Can we say “Clinton Gun Ban”? C'mon Jake, they can't ALL be secret society tea party members.
Thirteenth: “Packing is all about denying that that is the case, that behind each gun is a frightened person who when Glocks come up against assault rifles, know when to shut up and shut down.”
First, work on that grammar Jake (“...who when”?). Second, how exactly do you know what “packing” is all about, since you refuse to “pack”? Are you going to tell me that you know what women want too? (I'd really like to know the answer to that one!)
If you are referring to the IHOP incident, the gun owner in question (with the Glock) chose not to shoot for his own reasons, which you will NEVER know, since you cannot enter his mind and find out.
It's so nice to know that you believe so much in your little fantasy world, where everything happens the way you think it does, without any hard facts to back up your assumptions. Show me the FACTS Jake. I want to see actual, verifiable, repeatable scientific data Jake. Then and only then will I even begin to listen to what you have to say.
Unsupported conclusions are where you end up when you believe everything you read without performing the due diligence to check the underlying data for fact. This is also known as “faith”. My one and only question is: how do you know FOR CERTAIN that what they are telling you is fact if you refuse to verify the information?
I'll be waiting for that data Jake...
ZKen, let's begin:
First, you stated “I am far more aware of the limitations and applications of what I practice than you are of what you practice”. This prejudiced statement shows that you still choose to hold the 'I'm right, he's wrong' position; and once again, you have failed to provide ANY evidence to support your statement.
How exactly are you aware of the “limitations and applications” of what I practice? Do you even know what I practice? How can you weigh my “limitations and applications” against your own, when you cannot provide any solid evidence that mine even exist?
Second, you stated: “Your tendency to fixate on words that trigger your anger is a red flag”. Until you brought it up, I was completely unaware of my supposed 'anger' that you describe. Here I was trying to have a rational, objective argumentative conversation with you, and instead of responding in a lucid manner, you judge me as being 'angry', with once again, no basis in fact.
Third, you stated: “I realize that my observations of the unreliable nature of guns and how legal consequences often don't prevent misuse of said guns upsets your carefully constructed sense of security”. Once again, making judgments without any basis in fact. Yes, guns can be unreliable. But it can also be said that events do not usually play out the way you want them to, such as when you practice in the dojo. Also, I have never claimed a “carefully constructed sense of security”. Once again, your subjective thinking is getting the best of you, and coloring how you see my comments.
It's really too bad that you have such a hard time understanding clear, rational thought as presented in objective prose. In other words, you're only choosing to accept what you believe to be true (subjective), and not what is actual fact (objective). This is also known as a 'cognitive illusion'.
Fourth, you stated: “You have a lot of unresolved issues”. Once again, where is the solid evidence that you base your opinion upon? If anything, my opinion of you would be the same. Based on the limited evidence (your writing), it seems to me that you are subconsciously projecting your inadequacies and fears upon everyone else, so that you have something or someone to blame for your shortcomings. The pattern is self-evident in this case. But I am not writing this to pass judgment based upon my limited evidence of your continuing mental illness.
You implied that I have PTSD. I do not, sir. I do commend you for being proactive in dealing with your own demons by choosing martial arts. This, however, does not automatically make everything you do 'correct' and everything else 'incorrect'. No matter how much you want to have faith in your sport, self defense is NOT a martial art, nor is a martial art self defense, at least in civilized society. I offer the writings of Marc MacYoung as prima facie evidence (and of course, there is much more solid, real world evidence available...but in the interests of brevity...); or for a more scientific viewpoint, I offer the works of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Both authors are excellent resources on the objective nature of fighting and self-defense.
The way I have been (generally) responding to your posts is referred to as 'critical thinking'. This is something you may want to look into, since just the simple idea of metacognition would give you great insight to why you color the world with your preconceived biases.
I am only attempting to show you that there is more to this than the limited belief system you adhere to so voraciously. I choose to think rationally and scientifically, basing my decisions on fact and evidence, whereas you choose to think subjectively and irrationally, and base your decisions on faith and hearsay. One thing is for certain; we agree that we disagree.
I apologize for my mistakes: "ideas" should be "ideals", and "so" should be "to". I caught myself that time.
"If something is obvious, true and right why does it need justification?"
First, this statement is subjective. It is based on your ideas, not fact.
Second, the reason why it needs justification, is because in our civilized society, we have these neat things called LAWS. Now I agree with you that one needs to do what one deems necessary in a bad situation, however, it is the consequences of your actions that will haunt you long afterwards while the prosecuting attorney tries their best to throw you in prison for a long, long time.
I have found that the majority of people who make a conscious effort to learn to defend themselves generally choose to ignore the legal consequences of putting their training to use. I also agree with you that constant honing of your defense skills is a very good idea. But in ANY self defense situation, the 'before' and 'during' phases are not the only ones we need to train for. These two phases usually only last minutes, sometimes seconds (as you pointed out), but it is the third 'after' phase that I am shedding light upon. This 'after' phase will usually last months or years, and can include not only criminal charges, but also civil action against you, and has the very real chance of not only taking away your freedom (prison time), possibly your life (death row), but also your possessions (lawsuit).
This phase is very real, and affects anyone who chooses to defend themselves. Learning how to protect yourself from the physical side is needed, yes, but learning to protect yourself from the legal side is also greatly needed. It is simply the other side of the coin that is usually ignored.
Not so sound patronizing (again), but do you also teach the legal ramifications of the techniques that you teach in your martial arts classes?
Unfortunately, the society we live in has a very aggressive legal side to it, and the gun owners especially NEED to learn legal self defense in addition to physical self defense.
You and I have our differences in opinion, that is obvious. I only hope we can agree on this issue.
"That is why it is called a Martial (preparing for war) Art (projecting the possible) into potentially real situations."
"Preparing for war"? Really? Which war are you preparing for? Once again, you have exposed your lack of understanding of the difference between self defense and assault. You don't seem to understand that "preparing for war" is generally NOT a term you would want to use in a criminal case you're defending.
The POINT of my comments, that you STILL choose to ignore, is that MAJOR legal consequences usually follow a self defense use of a firearm. But my comments are falling on deaf ears, since you live in a world where the good guy is always identifiable and righteous, and the bad guy gets his ass kicked by some martial arts person such as yourself.
You are a prosecutor's dream defendant. It wouldn't surprise me if you chose to represent yourself when you end up in court for using your 'martial arts war skills' to assault someone.
And just for the record, if I used my real-life, actual combat skills, that I actually used during REAL wartime (I am a veteran), in everyday life to defend myself, I'd be sitting on death row. Society-at-large is NOT a war zone. But why should I even keep writing...you don't care. It's nice to know that you live somewhere where not only is war a constant threat, but also where laws of civilized society do not exist.
Blood in the streets!!! Crazy, paranoid gun owners everywhere!!! Random shootings every day, all over the state!!! Be afraid!!! They're out to get you!!!
I'm still waiting to see all this happening...
Could SOMEONE who is anti-gun PLEASE point out where this is happening? I've been all over the state and I'm still looking. Wait, wait, wait...I've been looking in the wrong place. All I have to do is look up to see that the sky is falling...
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation