Gone full retard

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by mrblond, Apr 28, 2016.

Tags:
  1. mrblond

    mrblond
    Salem OR
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    2,332
    Sgt Nambu and Brutus57 like this.
  2. albin25

    albin25
    Lewiston Idaho
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    6,129
    Geez... everytime I think that the Huff n' Poop's contributors can't get any more moronic, they yet again manage to discover another level of idiocy.
    The idea that a murderer's right to a fair trial is denied if the intended victim kills him in a successful self-defense, proves the writer has lost his sanity and jumped from the Cliff of Stupidity...
    ...On the bright side, given his low opinion of self-defense, he's probably wearing a parachute designed to open on impact.
     
    robertg and coyotecaller like this.
  3. Doc In UPlace

    Doc In UPlace
    Tacoma-ish
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,691
    Likes Received:
    2,150
    The author of that piece is evidently lacking a grasp of logic and knowledge regarding the concepts of justifiable homicide, which goes back to 1600's England, and he reverses the original purpose of the US Militias, which was not to revolt against its own (American) government but to protect the colonies from Spanish and French settlers, native American rebellions, and the British themselves by asserting that Militias exist to overthrow the government.

    He ignores about 350 years' of judicial precedence and displays an appalling misunderstanding of American history.

    In 1688, British lawmakers adopted a declaration of rights, listing such basic liberties as the right to petition, and banning practices such as cruel and unusual punishments. The English Declaration of Rights also asserted: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence (sic) suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

    With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority held that the Constitution protected the right to the possession of firearms for the purpose of self-defense "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".

    In the (I won't give legitimacy by referring to it as "an article") series of paragraphs that was posted, the "blogger" makes no sense, and is marginally over the line of sanity. Shame on HuffPo for publishing it.

    But to paint all Liberals with a brush dipped in this guy's garbage is not fair and is gratuitously inflammatory. I know a few meat-eating, gun-toting "liberals" who would not for a moment agree with anything the "blogger" wrote there.

    What's more, to compare the "blogger" to morons demeans morons. Most of them are sane and some actually hold elected office (OK I couldn't resist the easy shot.) :p
     
    scrandall01215, albin25 and Slobray like this.
  4. scrandall01215

    scrandall01215
    Washougal,WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    566
    Verbal diarrhea is all I read. It shouldn't have been published as stated above.

    Stacy
     
    edslhead likes this.
  5. AMT

    AMT
    Vancouver, WA.
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    660
    Personally, I love Penn and Teller. :)

     
    jim97701 and mjbskwim like this.
  6. 2506

    2506
    Seattle
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,414
    Likes Received:
    848
    Fortunately, it looks like common sense is prevailing based on the comments section of the article. My completely unscientific conclusion of the commenters' general consensus is that the author is a clod.
     
  7. dude23

    dude23
    PDX
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    278
    This is the choicest lapse of reason I found:

    "The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons."

    The way to see if a statement or idea is just or reasonable is to follow the logic to its conclusion. By his statement that tools or objects are inherently evil because someone may get ahold of them and cause violence the logical assumption is that all objects that fall into this category of being commandeered by criminals for violence against society.

    A short list of other objects that are in the same group as firearms and can be used for violence:

    • Automobiles
    • yard tools
    • gasoline
    • computers
    • voting
    • government
    • religion
    • intelligence/education
    • male sexual organs

    All these evil objects, groups or activities have no place in a just and polite society. They are all to be turned in or disposed of accordingly. All males are to report for castration, everyone with higher than a highschool education or who has taken an IQ test and scored over 120 is to report for a lobotomy. As soon as the government performs these duties they are to be disbanded & all buildings and offices filled with concrete.

    All that will be left is a perfect anarchist utopia of eunuchs and the mentally disabled. Welcome to paradise.
     
  8. nammac

    nammac
    I-5 Corridor - West of Portland
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes Received:
    8,704
  9. whiskeybill

    whiskeybill
    Battle Ground, WA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    332
    Fluoride has been banned in Portland, hasn't it? I guess that leaves the other option.
     
  10. edslhead

    edslhead
    Vanc
    Platinum Supporter Platinum Supporter Gold Supporter Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    5,917
    You shouldn't read that huffy post crap, nobody else does :rolleyes:
     
    etrain16, Slobray and scrandall01215 like this.
  11. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5
    Western OR
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,954
    Likes Received:
    7,488
    He's a Huff-Po kinda guy, through and through.
    After all, he wrote this too:
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Communist...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B010R0WV7M

    When you want to take everything away from the people, you have to start with their guns, or other means used to defend themselves.
     
    nammac likes this.
  12. Sgt Nambu

    Sgt Nambu
    Oregon
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,069
    Likes Received:
    15,811
    DPD, Dependent Personality Disorder!:(
     
  13. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke
    Eugene
    Curmudgeon Silver Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    4,595
    Justin's only "qualifications" to write this article seem to be a BA in philosophy and a willingness to publicly expose his ignorance and lack of writing ability for all to see. This is his (only) 15 minutes of fame. Not much to see here. Move along.
     
    Slobray likes this.
  14. David Bowman

    David Bowman
    Beaverton OR
    Archer Defense Concepts

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    465
    "The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights"
    ----Justin Curmi


    Liberalism is a mental disorder. Fair trials and self defense have as much to do with each other as apples and tires.

    So what about the cops? They react defensively and shoot to defend themselves; just like civilians, so are we headed for the prototype for Judge Dredd?

    What about liberals 3rd favorite victim group; female victims of stalking by men. Are they going to all need to become judges so they can "adjudicate" a self defense encounter?

    Attackers do not assume some sort of "super-legal" status by becoming attackers. They are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. The attackers are not "devoid" of rights; they are attempting to deprive someone of their right to life, liberty, or private property without the benefit of due process of law using extra legal and unlawful means. The right to "life" is the most important right of all; because from it all other rights proceed. Self defense does not "impose" on justice; it hands down a fair ruling to someone attempting to deprive the victim of their own most important right (without trial). So the attacker gets what laymen in the law call "just desserts."

    See Justin, not all of us gun folks are dumb hicks with pickup trucks. This is what happens when only you and your mommy think you are smart.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2016
    Slobray likes this.

Share This Page