Guns, gays & taxes

[4star4]

This is the republican base. I don't agree with any. You?

[saifan]

Guns, guns, guns!!!! Gun control is not the answer.

Oh, and in before the move.

[Quiet Reflections]

i love guns. im a member of the NRA. I do hate taxes but would gladly pay more to help fund worthwhile programs. As far as LGBT rights go. im all for that

[nycguy69]

Guns: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the People with the means to overturn a tyrannical government. If they come for your guns, what else will they take from you.
Gays: sexual orientation is irrelevant in a society that truly embraces liberty.
Taxes: when another person uses force to take your property it's called theft. When the gov't does it it's "taxes". 'Nuff said.

It's time to abandon the divisive republicrat/demoblican bullshit and embrace the politics of liberty! Google Ron Paul and listen to his message!

[Paladin]

This is the republican base. I don't agree with any. You?

nice try

[msbhaven]

Good post NYC guy. I know that are lots of people in the gay and trans community that support the dems because they are more friendly to their cause. Unfortunately they are wrong on most of the other major issues that don't involve a religious aspect.

Repubs on the other hand can't seem to keep their repressed selves out our bedrooms and panties. If those people would worry about their own lives as much as they worried about everyone elses we all would be a lot better off.

Libertarians get most of the answers right. However they are wrong not to support military efforts to wage the war on terror as far from our borders as possible. That to me is the single most important issue we face. Almost all other issues or mistakes can be corrected eventually. But a nuclear or biological terrorist attack on this country can't be undone once it happens. It's vitally important that we do everything in our power to prevent such a possiblity.

[SarahG]

Gays: sexual orientation is irrelevant in a society that truly embraces liberty.


Simple, yet flawlessly said.

It's too bad more people can't see it like that.

[El Nino]

Guns: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the People with the means to overturn a tyrannical government. If they come for your guns, what else will they take from you.
Gays: sexual orientation is irrelevant in a society that truly embraces liberty.
Taxes: when another person uses force to take your property it's called theft. When the gov't does it it's "taxes". 'Nuff said.

It's time to abandon the divisive republicrat/demoblican bullshit and embrace the politics of liberty! Google Ron Paul and listen to his message!

You hit the nail smack dab on the head!

[OEMEnemyNum1]

Guns are dangerous, but so are cars. I enjoy shooting, and not because I'm gonna kill someone. I find it hard to believe there are that many people against guns.

[NYBURBS]

Guns: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the People with the means to overturn a tyrannical government. If they come for your guns, what else will they take from you.
Gays: sexual orientation is irrelevant in a society that truly embraces liberty.
Taxes: when another person uses force to take your property it's called theft. When the gov't does it it's "taxes". 'Nuff said.

It's time to abandon the divisive republicrat/demoblican bullshit and embrace the politics of liberty! Google Ron Paul and listen to his message!

I love this guy already, and he's from NY too 8)

[tgirlzoe]

Guns are dangerous, but so are cars. I enjoy shooting, and not because I'm gonna kill someone. I find it hard to believe there are that many people against guns.

The difference is that guns are designed to kill animals or people (handguns are designed to kill people). Cars are designed to move you from point A to point B quickly. Now, it's true that moving too fast in a large steel box can get people killed, but it's not the point.

I can both say that violence and guns are immoral, especially handguns which are not useful for hunting (the morality of which is another question), and that they should not be made illegal. Should people be allowed to own machine guns or tanks? If we didn't have such a huge government asserting itself with violence, there wouldn't be machine guns or tanks. It could be said that if civilians were allowed to own machine guns, they might kill a lot of people. However, military personnel have machine guns to kill a lot of people.

I can say the same thing about abortion -- that abortion is immoral and that it should not be controlled. The point is not that something is right but that the state, even a democratic one, should not use violence to coerce people into doing something that they believe is right. A virtuous action done by coercion is no virtue at all and an immoral action done by coercion is still immoral. If a man points a gun at another man's head and demands that he give all his cash to charity, then even if the man does so, it is not counted as virtue. If a man has a gun to his head and is forced to kill a woman and he does so, then he is still responsible for his action because he acted to preserve himself at the expense of someone else.

I choose to avoid guns. Guns are designed to kill and killing is immoral. I don't believe that someone being on your property means you can kill them, I don't believe someone robbing you means you can kill them. Pretty much every scenario in which gun promoters propose, I believe it is immoral to kill. I also don't believe you should pull a gun out unless you have the guts to pull the trigger if necessary so the whole "unloaded gun"/"just for threats" case is bad. I believe in unilateral disarmament -- it's wrong, don't do it.

But I'm not going to use the violence of the State to make other people obey me (assuming I'm part of the majority) in not carrying guns. That's just as wrong.

[NYBURBS]

But I'm not going to use the violence of the State to make other people obey me (assuming I'm part of the majority) in not carrying guns. That's just as wrong.

My heart just fluttered a little :claps

[dan_drade]

www.lp.org

[tgirlzoe]

It's time to abandon the divisive republicrat/demoblican bullshit and embrace the politics of liberty! Google Ron Paul and listen to his message!

I am not fully in support of Ron Paul. Where I disagree with him is where he diverts from the Libertarian Party platform -- namely in the areas of abortion and sexuality. Paul supports the "right" of local governments to create regulations in these areas, even though he opposes the federal government doing so. He is in this more of a State's-Rights proponent, whereas I am more of an anarchist.

However, if you choose to vote, I'd say vote for Ron Paul -- you might as well vote for less government than more.

[SarahG]

Now, it's true that moving too fast in a large steel box can get people killed, but it's not the point.

Actually that's not true, the danger comes from people not knowing how to drive, being distracted, or posing a danger by creating a difference in speed between them & everyone else.

AFAIK there isn't any data to suggest that 55 is safer than 65 or that 65 is safer from 70 (and these are 3 common speeds for thruways in the US). However in all 3 scenarios, some old guy doing 25 is posing a hazard because of the difference in speed between themself and everyone else.

I will agree that any accident that occurs at a higher speed will be more likely to result in the injuries being worse, but its not the speed that causes the accidents.

Most speed limits are an arbitrarily assigned figure inside a range of what is safe.



If we didn't have such a huge government asserting itself with violence, there wouldn't be machine guns or tanks.


That's not really true either, most of these inventions were made by private civilians who weren't even (at the time) working for the government. If you really want to get picky, the genesis of most military grade armaments is based off of some construed version of MAD-philosophy. Tanks, gas, machine guns, barb wire, landmines- all these things were developed by civilians in the decades before WW1, under the mindset that the deadlier war became, the less likely people would be to fight it.

By 1896, people were so confident that this industry had succeeded in making war deadly enough to end its practice, a capitalist in Poland named LS Bloch wrote a 6 volume economic study on modern warfare where he declared it would be impossible (thats actually a bit lost in translation, what he really meant was suicidal- since the benefits from war in gains- like land acquisition, would be minuscule in comparison to the costs of the conflict). Bloch pretty much said that eventually the by product would be a type of warfare so stalemated, so expensive, so bloody that it would cause social instability, and once the economic stress was enough to destroy existing power structures, it would cause societal decay and revolutions. Bloch's predictions were so grotesque that it gave Nicholas the 2nd nightmares to the point where he met with Bloch, gave him Russian admirals & generals to help translate the study into more languages, and then hosted the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

As to governments asserting themselves, certainly you'll find that at any moment in history regardless what the available armaments were. The natives would have a very different perspective on this issue, seeing that they lost pretty much all the land in north america- without tanks or machine guns being employed (yes we had the gatling gun during the indian skirmishes in the west but the gun saw little use in that environment because it didn't work in that type of engagements).

If you are an anarchist, I'll remind you that there is an author in the field, although his name presently escapes me, who argues that what happens when you refuse to resort to violence to fullfill your agenda, when dealing with issues of oppression- is you're giving your opponent a monopoly in the application of such force. If the response is always to "work within the system legally to peacefully dissent" then that's not going to mean a whole hell of a lot if your dissenting against some militant dictator who has no problem with the use of deadly force.



It could be said that if civilians were allowed to own machine guns, they might kill a lot of people. However, military personnel have machine guns to kill a lot of people.

The assault weapon ban came in the 70s iirc, a hundred-ten years after machine guns had first been invented.... how many mass murders using said equipment can you think of in the United States during that hundred years time?

Not many, I am sure more people in that time have died from falling down stairs accidentally, catching colds, or getting in automobile accidents (a technology that did not exist during the first few decades of near-automatic firearms).

[brdnpa7]

I love guns and own many! As long as I live in a country with a government that will put a gun in my hand, send me half way around the world to kill people to promote it's political agenda, I'll own guns for protection, hunting and target shooting......

[tgirlzoe]

if you choose to vote, I'd say vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is not running for President.

You're right. I missed this news from last Monday amidst all the bank stuff.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul endorses Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin for President of the United States (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Republican_Congressman_Ron_Paul_endorses_Constitut ion_Party_nominee_Chuck_Baldwin_for_President_of_t he_United_States)

I'm sure plenty of people will still vote for him, however.

I'm not sure who to vote for now. I feel Bob Barr (Libertarian) is too moderate, oh and thanks for the War on Drugs! At least he's trying to undo the bad things he did as a Representative. I might vote for him just to support the Libertarian Party in general.

The Constitution Party opposes too much government intervention, which is good, but they want to use the State to further a socially conservative agenda. Hmm... eliminate social programs but make more restrictive laws, this sounds bad... Further a socially conservative agenda all you want, I generally support it, but don't use the State to enforce it (see my above post). However, I did vote Constitution at least once in the local primaries.

[SarahG]

if you choose to vote, I'd say vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is not running for President.

You're right. I missed this news from last Monday amidst all the bank stuff.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul endorses Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin for President of the United States (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Republican_Congressman_Ron_Paul_endorses_Constitut ion_Party_nominee_Chuck_Baldwin_for_President_of_t he_United_States)

I'm sure plenty of people will still vote for him, however.

I'm not sure who to vote for now. I feel Bob Barr (Libertarian) is too moderate, oh and thanks for the War on Drugs! At least he's trying to undo the bad things he did as a Representative. I might vote for him just to support the Libertarian Party in general.

The Constitution Party opposes too much government intervention, which is good, but they want to use the State to further a socially conservative agenda. Hmm... eliminate social programs but make more restrictive laws, this sounds bad... Further a socially conservative agenda all you want, I generally support it, but don't use the State to enforce it (see my above post). However, I did vote Constitution at least once in the local primaries.

I kinda have to think MOST people who claim to be libertarians when running for offices, really just want to become the ruling figure of local or state level oppressive regimes, knowing then they'd have higher odds at succeeding, and higher odds of being one of the few elitists in charge.

Paul would be perfectly happy being in charge of a state government- one more oppressive than the feds have ever been- and just because its a state, we're supposed to take his word at it being ethical & righteous.

He also knows who he'd let be in control at a state level, the same type of militantly radical conservatives who support him, and he'd know that, in at least some states, the population would eagerly endorse fundamentalist Evangelical rule.

The response then, and is often used now- would be "if you don't like it, leave" to where it works for you which falsely assumes such an alternate land would exist at all. It is a fundamentally bigoted, and racist concept on broad terms. It didn't work, nor was it right, when we tried to "cure the race issue in America" by "sending them all back to Africa" yet this is precisely the same principle when its a "don't like your rights being violated, than leave" mentality.

[barefootjoe69]

I choose to avoid guns. Guns are designed to kill and killing is immoral. I don't believe that someone being on your property means you can kill them, I don't believe someone robbing you means you can kill them. Pretty much every scenario in which gun promoters propose, I believe it is immoral to kill. I also don't believe you should pull a gun out unless you have the guts to pull the trigger if necessary so the whole "unloaded gun"/"just for threats" case is bad. I believe in unilateral disarmament -- it's wrong, don't do it.

Sorry Zoe but there is a name for people like you.
They are called VICTIMS!!

Do you really think that the criminal breaking into your house is going to have the same morals as you? He is going to kill you if you get in his way and he won't think twice about it! He may even kill you just to eliminate the possibility of a witness.
As another human being, I would much rather have you kill him then to have him kill you.
You will do more good in your life for the rest of mankind.
He will just provide endless misery for other people and their families.

[tgirlzoe]

If you are an anarchist, I'll remind you that there is an author in the field, although his name presently escapes me, who argues that what happens when you refuse to resort to violence to fullfill your agenda, when dealing with issues of oppression- is you're giving your opponent a monopoly in the application of such force. If the response is always to "work within the system legally to peacefully dissent" then that's not going to mean a whole hell of a lot if your dissenting against some militant dictator who has no problem with the use of deadly force.

I believe Lenin said something similar and I'm sure there are anarchists promoting "propaganda of the deed" who have expressed similar sentiments.

I never said "work within the system", it's the so-called "system" (poorly defined) which I oppose.

Dictators are only as powerful as the people who listen to them. If the people don't listen, he has no power.

If you fight violence with violence, then violence wins. It is violence, force and hatred which I oppose. The State is a manifestation of established violence and force, that is why I oppose it.



It could be said that if civilians were allowed to own machine guns, they might kill a lot of people. However, military personnel have machine guns to kill a lot of people.

The assault weapon ban came in the 70s iirc, a hundred-ten years after machine guns had first been invented.... how many mass murders using said equipment can you think of in the United States during that hundred years time?

How many people shot up malls or schools in the 1970s? How many people went on killing sprees in the past two years? There is a strong increase in anomie and nihilism, people are disaffected and lashing out because they don't understand the world doesn't just exist, it has to be created. It's probable that after the crash, mass murders will increase, but hopefully we will be able to create a peaceful free society.

Individuals make decisions on how they will live their lives. Some people choose to commit murder, they do so to their own ruin, which is pitiable and sad. I often weep more for the murderer than their victim. People must choose positive, peaceful solutions or they are no different from those whom they oppose.

[tgirlzoe]

Sorry Zoe but there is a name for people like you.
They are called VICTIMS!!

Do you really think that the criminal breaking into your house is going to have the same morals as you? He is going to kill you if you get in his way and he won't think twice about it! He may even kill you just to eliminate the possibility of a witness.
As another human being, I would much rather have you kill him then to have him kill you.
You will do more good in your life for the rest of mankind.
He will just provide endless misery for other people and their families.

Murder is always wrong. It is a crime against God.

I have struggled with the possibility of contacting the man who raped me. According to his profile, he works in the same plaza as I do. I want to work on forgiving him, forgiveness is a process and it is mediated by God. This is far better than committing violence against someone because you feel that you have been wronged or you think someone might wrong you.

[SarahG]

I never said "work within the system", it's the so-called "system" (poorly defined) which I oppose.

Dictators are only as powerful as the people who listen to them. If the people don't listen, he has no power.

But a dictator does have the power, most especially if he's the only one willing & able to use force to assert himself.

You know what happens to people who ignore dictators? They get gassed, shot, disfigured, or imprisoned.

Sure, I could order someone to do anything- and if they thought me to be crazy they'd probably ignore it... yet there have been so many incidents were dictators of even questionable sanity had people listening to them, because of that threat to violence, and it is very rare for a single person to actually form an oppressive regime based on violence... it is armed groups that make up threats, and it is armed groups that the unarmed (or armed but unwilling to use said arms) obey.

I can't think of a single time where "working outside the system" successfully overturned an oppressive regime without force or threat of force being employed.

As to Lenin, he certainly wasn't an anarchist, and most of the die-hard communists cared more about group affiliation than philosophy. Whether or not you got yourself shot was based more on who you hung around than what you believed, or what you physically did. This is true within the in-fighting in Russia in those early years, it was true when the organized Lenin-lead military fought the Germans in Finland, it was true in China with the formation of the CCP, and it was especially true in Spain where the communist leaders tried to PUT DOWN the revolution because they knew that it would more likely be lead by a non-Comintern entity. Orwell was almost killed when he was fighting in Spain, not because of his philosophy, but because he happened to fall within a competing political party fighting for the revolution. There were actually several competing socialist groups in Spain during that civil war, plus the communists, plus the anarchists, plus the fascists, plus the provisional government- and the Comintern forces only cared about whether you were fighting for the Comintern.



How many people shot up malls or schools in the 1970s? How many people went on killing sprees in the past two years?

Not many, and most of those shootings did not involve either of the armaments we're talking about. There simply is no data to suggest automatic weapons cause mass-murders in the United States, before, during, or after the assault weapon ban. You can find mass murders from any era- even before firarms existed. These events, even now- are fairly rare and, although there may be an increase in gun related violence- it is done using a wide range of firearms, and in most cases, the type employed is not the types of firearm's we're talking about (and that holds true pre, during, or post assault weapons ban). If you take columbine for instance, only one of their firearms was an auto (factory it was a sub-auto), their 995 was assault-weapons ban legal, and the other was a sawed off shotgun.

I get that a lot of people think that "hand guns are evil" because they're tiny, but they're not all tiny, and "tiny" is a relative expression that has no subjective value. I have a 22-rifle that's technically shorter in length (and its factory original) than a desert eagle, which is considered a side arm.

It really doesn't matter whether or not the firearm can be used in hunting (a sidearm can be, although its use is probably uncommon in the sport- I'm sure virtually every side arm made today is more accurate than the long arms that were used to hunt pre-CW), because the bigger issue is this issue over whether people's natural rights extend to owning firearms (if property rights are taken to be immoral and fictitious, then you can't have a right to own a gun- because you can't have a right to own anything!) out of protection concerns (and by that I mean every use of the debate relating to protection, including "protection from oppressive regimes").

You know, all the guns used by Whitmann in texas weren't of the type of gun we're talking about, and that was BEFORE the assault weapons ban was even dreamt up... the casualties are comparable to Columbine.



Individuals make decisions on how they will live their lives. Some people choose to commit murder, they do so to their own ruin...

Exactly- which is why in our society people are punished after, not before, they break the law. We don't go and say "well, some people use _cars_ with ill-intent in mind, so let's get rid of them all" (you can fill in the the _cars_ with anything, even tasers and still have it apply), yet after someone shows that they did do something violating anothers' rights with said equipment, the gloves go off and their ass gets thrown in jail.

Does it really matter what tool is used to do the crime if a criminal robs someone via a gun, knife, sword, baseball bat, car, brick, 24" long dildo, or 2x4? My rommates watch those cop "caught on video" shows all the time, in one a guy tried to held up a store with a palm tree..... yet the crime is otherwise all the same, and they should go to the same prison, for the same length, for the same reasons.

[barefootjoe69]

Murder is always wrong. It is a crime against God.

Murder may be wrong but self defense is not! Read the bible and see how many times killing is mentioned in the name of God and the righteous.
Then again if you believe in God the Almighty, Murder is a crime committed by God against Mankind, for if he is all knowing and all powerful he could stop it if he so choose to.


I have struggled with the possibility of contacting the man who raped me. According to his profile, he works in the same plaza as I do. I want to work on forgiving him, forgiveness is a process and it is mediated by God. This is far better than committing violence against someone because you feel that you have been wronged or you think someone might wrong you.[/quote]

I'm sorry to hear you were raped.
You shouldn't have to think you have been wronged, YOU HAVE BEEN WRONGED!! That person has no place in society and should be put away so that he does not do the same thing to another innocent person.

You sound like a very loving and caring person and the world needs more people like you but you also need to stand up to the evil people of this world and say we will not go silently into the night. Evil must be fought or it will conquer all of us.

[Quiet Reflections]

Murder isnt always wrong! come on dont you watch DEXTER

[tgirlzoe]

Murder is always wrong. It is a crime against God.

Murder may be wrong but self defense is not!

I am not advocating non-resistance. What I am suggesting is that, for example, just because someone breaks into your house gives you no right to kill them.

In honor of The Feast of St. Jerome, which we celebrated tonight, read St. Jerome and the Lion (http://www.fisheaters.com/animals3.html). The lion comes into the monastery, roaring his head off, frightening all the monks away except Jerome. Jerome realizes the lion isn't trying to scare or hurt anyone but that he is injured himself. He discovers that there is a thorn stuck in the lions foot and removes it.

There is always more to a person's story.


I'm sorry to hear you were raped. You shouldn't have to think you have been wronged, YOU HAVE BEEN WRONGED!! That person has no place in society and should be put away so that he does not do the same thing to another innocent person.

Okay, I was wronged, as far as I am concerned. My point with the nuance there is that it's a perceptual thing. Often, two people or two groups of people come into conflict, each believing they are doing what is right. If we introduce violence and force into the equation then the Truth dies. Only reconciliation and communication can heal that void.

What would I do in a physical confrontation? I would use words first, then defense. The different is that I would not use a weapon. A weapon is not a defensive item, it is an offensive item. If you feel the need, there are martial arts and Western systems which disable attackers without injuring them. Then perhaps you can talk to them if they are reasonable.

Say someone is trying to rob you. You could choose to protect your property at the expense of the other person's welfare or even life, or you could choose to hand over your purse or wallet. Even better, if you use the above suggestion and disable him so he can no longer rob you, and then you freely give him money he obviously desperately needs, then you have saved him from having to commit robbery and he is perhaps affected. If possible, take pity on him and talk to him. He is your brother the same as anyone else.

As for the man who raped me, he is my brother as well. If I continue to avoid reconciliation, it will eat at me even over two years after the fact. Does he know that he did me wrong? Did he feel remorse? We don't have to be friends but does he know that I love him? If I talk to him, might he be more careful to control his lust, knowing how it effects women if he is forceful? I just have to get up the nerve to confront the situations and all those emotions that it generated so that I can talk to him.

No one is innocent, do I think that I am any better than he? We are all broken, fallen people.


You sound like a very loving and caring person and the world needs more people like you but you also need to stand up to the evil people of this world and say we will not go silently into the night. Evil must be fought or it will conquer all of us.

Evil must be fought, yes, but if you fight evil with evil then evil wins and not good. Paul writes to the Romans in chapter 12, "Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not." (v. 14), "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men." (v. 17), "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." (v. 18 ), "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." (v. 20) and finally, "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (v. 21).

And, of course, a couple of classic lines from Christ:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: ' But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. ' And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also. ' And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. ' Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." (Mt 5:38-42)

I read an interesting commentary on a couple of these verses, talking about the implications of slapping someone on the cheek. A couple of explanations were useful, highlighting Christ's wonderful biting humor. Such as that if someone steals your coat, give him your cloak as well, not only is he now the recipient of a gift rather than a robber, but additionally you are now naked and that is a great humiliation for a man to see another man naked (much more than that of the man who is naked). The "going the extra mile" has to do with Roman soldiers who would come along people on the road and force them to carry their packs for a mile (this was allowed by law, but the limit was one mile). By going the extra mile, you not only cause them to break the law, but can show your generosity to them and talk to them. The author (and I forget which book it was), had some other interesting commentaries on the Beatitudes and the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.

Also, I do not believe in evil people. I have yet to meet one.

[SarahG]

. Often, two people or two groups of people come into conflict, each believing they are doing what is right. If we introduce violence and force into the equation then the Truth dies. Only reconciliation and communication can heal that void.

I agree with you here, which is why we have courts that, at least in theory- investigate into incidents when crimes occur, short out the facts, and if people are lucky- arrive at proving who the guilty party was, so it can be dealt with.

Anyone who thinks gun ownership should, or can be a tool for revenge in our system is completely wrong. The protection debate has nothing to do with revenge, all "revenge" force is, is street justice/mob violence, which has no justice.

Using firearms for protection means reacting to a tangible, direct threat (real or perceived). That's why, again in theory, cops are held accountable if they just start shooting people "to shoot people." There are very explicit rules of engagement for everyone in our system when talking about force.

There are even rules of engagement when dealing with nonlethal force. I can't legally just smack someone around because I don't like what they say, nor can a cop taser me "for revenge" when he believes I were rude to him while obeying his commands.

"Talking it out" only works when both parties are rational, which isn't a realistic expectation. Someone can be so drugged out on crack & meth that it won't even take a well placed round to put them down, they're certainly not going to sit down and have a logical discussion over why they're giving you a hard time.

How many trans citizens do you think have been killed by rational people who would have been willing to talk things out? There are radicals out there that simply do not care what you or anyone else has to say, and when they set out for blood- very little will stop them.

I am sure Gwen, Sheppard, and James Byrd presented very convincing, rational arguments over why they shouldn't be killed... not that their murderers gave a shit.

This case from 1999 in Texas illustrates my point perfectly:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jasper/guilty022499.htm

Byrd was beaten and then chained up and dragged by the bumper of a pickup truck until he died by a self-proclaimed white supremacist, who I am sure wouldn't have spared Byrd no matter what he said to defend himself.

I am not saying that these cases would have been avoided had the victims had guns on them at the time... but clearly "talking it out" just doesn't fly when you're dealing with certain kinds of criminals, and its those types of criminals who are most likely to require a deadly force response in order for their victims to be spared from their brutality.


In his closing argument, another prosecutor, Pat Hardy, described King and his co-defendants as "three robed riders coming straight out of hell." Noting that Byrd's dismembered body was left by the gate of an old black cemetery, Hardy said the three wanted "to show their defiance to God and Christianity and everything most people in this county stand for."

Byrd's death was intentionally done to send a message, these perpetrators would have done it regardless who he was, what he said, or how many children he had.

Thankfully these incidents are generally rare here- which is why they gain our attention in such ways, just as "home invaders put down by guns" tend to be rare acts in our society.

[Jericho]

Say someone is trying to rob you. You could choose to protect your property at the expense of the other person's welfare or even life, or you could choose to hand over your purse or wallet. Even better, if you use the above suggestion and disable him so he can no longer rob you, and then you freely give him money he obviously desperately needs, then you have saved him from having to commit robbery and he is perhaps affected. If possible, take pity on him and talk to him. He is your brother the same as anyone else.

Quite frankly, fuck that.
My stuff is My Stuff...Try stealing it and your arse is toast!

[dirty1002]

if you make guns illegal then only the criminals will have guns and the dems have always raised taxes more then the rep. and obama wants to realy stick it to us its not worth it to vote dem just for some gay rights

[tgirlzoe]

I am sure Gwen, Sheppard, and James Byrd presented very convincing, rational arguments over why they shouldn't be killed... not that their murderers gave a shit.

Maybe they would have still been alive. St. Stephen wouldn't be, perhaps he would have died from old age. So what? Everyone dies, self-preservation is a losing game and there is a lot of wrong you can do while trying to play that game.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/stephen.jpg

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell -- Mt. 10:28