|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2005 12:44:07 PM · #26 |
I agree they can both be used responsibly but to me taking a gun out on to the streets responsibly, woud mean with it secured, unable to be accidently discharged and not without having been trained in its use by a professional. Also never when having had an alcoholic drink, under the influence of drugs or with the intent of using it on the street where innocent people could be injured.
Although I do not want guns to be common in UK households and not with the main police force in the UK, I understand the USA people think differently about their country's needs. However, I think it is probably easier to fire a gun in the US than it is nto be a licensed driver. Am I wrong?
I think I would rather drive on the US freeway (which I have) than be in a street where the Saj is protecting himself!! :)
P
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 12:58:52 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I agree they can both be used responsibly but to me taking a gun out on to the streets responsibly, woud mean with it secured, unable to be accidently discharged and not without having been trained in its use by a professional. Also never when having had an alcoholic drink, under the influence of drugs or with the intent of using it on the street where innocent people could be injured.
Although I do not want guns to be common in UK households and not with the main police force in the UK, I understand the USA people think differently about their country's needs. However, I think it is probably easier to fire a gun in the US than it is nto be a licensed driver. Am I wrong?
I think I would rather drive on the US freeway (which I have) than be in a street where the Saj is protecting himself!! :)
P |
I have no idea about licensing a gun...I'm in Canada and I won't be owning a gun in my lifetime as far as I can tell.
As for UK police officers with guns...let's not go there. That's not meant to be a jab at anyone, in fact it supports your argument.
And as far Saj protecting himself...I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. For example, if somehow a prophet told me for a fact that at some point in my life a man would come into my house and try to rape my wife I can guarantee you that I would buy a gun that day and be prepared to threaten that man with it. Of course you would rather be elsewhere when that happens...that seems obvious to me.
The reason I'm not buying a gun is that I'm banking on the fact that this will not happen to us. If I lived in Jerusalem it's quite likely I would own a gun. Clearly, I'd rather live in a society that has no need for guns. Most people would.
Message edited by author 2005-08-29 13:00:44. |
|
|
|
08/29/2005 01:07:21 PM · #28 |
I know what you are saying about the police force in line with recent events but it is true that the overwhelming majority of British police are not armed and that is how `i want it to stay despite events in London.
I agree that to save a loved one from harm, I would do anything but I am just really against vigilante groups in public carrying lethal weapons due to a perceived threat - that is what I meant by the Saj protecting himself compared with driving on the freeway. Using your metaphor of driving a car, I would feel this was a lot safer.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear and this wasn't meant as a dig at the Saj or his character.
P
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 01:32:34 PM · #29 |
"Yes I do believe that anyone who carries a gun must be prepared to use it."
[[[ I agree with this, and will go a step farther and say they should be "trained" to use it. But that's not what you said here...
"Anyone that goes onto the streets armed, is saying they are prepared to kill someone and that shouldn't be allowed in any situation."
You're a parent. Now, I do not know if being a female if you have the same wiring as us guys. But I know if I was a mother and I saw a 6ft+ 280lbs man raping my daughter I would want access to a handgun - and I would without a doubt use it. I would first endeavor to fire a warning shot. Then a wounding shot...and yes, if that failed I would kill the man.
And frankly, I believe those actions are acceptable during such a situation and should be allowed.
"Anyone who carries a gun must therefore be prepared to kill."
This is not necessarily true. I believe anyone who carries a gun must be prepared to either kill or die. A gun can be used as a deterrant. And in many situations a gun can deter without killing - but not all. If it is the latter you must decide if you are going to kill or be killed. In the case were I a father and husband protecting my family I would choose to kill before allowing my family to be harmed.
"What you suggest is anarchy."
No, anarchy is the surrounding. When a government allows for anarchy a citizen has both the right and recourse to defend himself.
"The authorities aren't doing what you want so look after number1. Let's all carry guns and defend ourselves from percieved threats. I wonder how many innocent people would die? "
There are many areas of the country where it is not uncommon for people to carry pistols and to have rifles/shotguns in the homes. Nevada is a good example. Many of these regions have very low crime rates.
In fact, areas in which citizens do not have legal arms tend to have much higher crime rates.
A bit of fact for you. Gun restriction laws do nothing to prevent criminals from having guns. In fact, in high schol, I had a classmate who was a runner for a gun-dealer (illegal kind). This was during the passing of the brady bill. I asked him how it affects him. His answer - "It didn't...well actually it did. His connections expected an increase in business."
So I asked him, how hard would it be to get an illegal gun. He asked what I wanted. I said for example a pistol, say a .357. His response...if I wanted say a 9mm it'd take a day or two, if I wanted a fully automatic such as an Usi or AK-47 it'd be about a week. And if I wanted heavy weapons (machine gun, grenade launcher, mortar, etc) it would take a month or two because his sources would want to do a background check on me. Anyways, all of this is simply to show that the criminals have easy access to guns and weapons.
Now, as citizens, we usually forfeit our right to bear arms in lieu of a trained police force paid for by our pocket. However, if thise police force is too cease protecting us than we do have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves and our livelihood.
You claim what I am doing is anarchy. (Not that I am doing it - yet - because I believe the system is still workable.) But this is not the cause of anarchy but the result. For example, in Mexico where the police have ceased to protect and in fact those who are supposed to protect are now the abusers, in which case, you're stating that if a citizen there purchased a rifle to protect themselves they're a problem. But likewise, as is extremely common of leftist thinkers, you do not provide an alternative. You provide no way for them to maintain their safety.
So, if the police are not going to protect me, my family or my neighbors - would you please tell me who the hell else will?
"If your neighbour had come out when the car was in the street and discharged a gun a) does someone deserve to get shot for bad driving ?((albeit I agree this was awful) and b) what if your friends child had been shot accidently in the process?:"
No, but if they had indeed rolled over the jeep and killed my friend's daughter I would want to have them detained under citizen's arrest until police arrived. As police seldom catch those individuals who flee if more than a minute or two has passed.
And if in holding them till the police arrived one were to pull out a weapon - than yes - I would be willing to kill. And under our laws I am within my right to do so - to defend myself and my family.
"If the police aren't good enough or undermanned, then do something about it! Get out and go to your local authorities and change things. "
I can't...thanks to leftist political correctness our police force is castrated with regards to the matter. They can't come out against this ethnic celebration because they're a minority group and to say anything against them would be labelled racist or profiling. If I were to speak out about such a) I would be simply labelled a racist or b) I would find myself harmed or quite possibly killed for speaking out against what happened.
So, you tell me to fix it, but there isn't enough protection to speak out for it being fixed. And in fact, I am endeavoring to do so.
"Don't make yourself as wrong as the hooligans by equally breaking the law."
In the state of Connecticut carrying a pistol does not break the law. Nor does using a pistol in self-defense. Thus I would not be breaking the law in any fashion. We're not talking about hunting people. Just being able to defend one's self if the need arises.
"Can't you go to the leaders of this ethnic community for help if they are worried about the behaviour of probably a minority of their people? "
Not in New Haven...our minority leaders are racist and extreme. I once tried speaking to the head of the regional NAACP. His response was to dismiss my statements, tell me they never happened, and could never happen to a white man.
We had a case where an asian family won a minority grant to start a business in a building (it was financing for mortgage and business). The result - near rights demanding that the grant go to an african or hispanic minority only.
"I agree they can both be used responsibly but to me taking a gun out on to the streets responsibly, woud mean with it secured, unable to be accidently discharged and not without having been trained in its use by a professional."
Likewise, but you do not believe that Riponlady. As your prior statements declare. You are merely back-pedalling. You believe, as most liberals, that guns are the problems. And anyone with a gun is a killer.
"I think it is probably easier to fire a gun in the US than it is nto be a licensed driver. Am I wrong?"
You are very wrong. Even illegal aliens can get driver's licenses in the U.S. A legal weapon permit requires a) going thru and passing a professional training course b) a current upright standing in society (no violent felony convictions) c) abidance of stated local/state laws (which usually prohibit the carrying of such weapons near schools and other areas frequented by children) d) most states require a proper storage system (which involves a gun lock to prevent accidental use). e) discharge is allowed only in certain designated public areas and private establshments (rifle ranges or private property)
"I think I would rather drive on the US freeway (which I have) than be in a street where the Saj is protecting himself!!"
You're life would be in much greater jeopardy. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 01:45:32 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Ignoring the merits of the case, it is virtually impossible that "they were just walking through the property, probably ovlivious to the fact they were trespassing". They were NOT U.S.citizens, a fact that they MUST have been aware of, and they did NOT have permits or visas to enter the U.S., another fact that they MUST have been aware of, hence they were TRESPASSING the moment they crossed the border into the U.S., another fact that they MUST have been aware of.
And, just for my own edification, what would be your response if you found two such "oblivious" men, who you don't remember reading anywhere were any kind of threat, walking thru your apartment? |
I'm not arguing that these Salvadoran men were not guilty of entering the country illegally, just that when you have paramilitary groups who take the law into their own hands lynch mobs can result involving brutal murders, as has been the history of this country. Usually, these types of groups scapegoat a specific ethnicity and when the fever pitch of anger and hatred against them becomes so high innocent human lives can be lost.
where do these illegal aliens go when they come in the US anyway? Perhaps to businesses who hire them for meager wages and no benefits. Would going after those businesses by law enforcement possibly reduce illegal alien border crossings? I would think it would curtail it quite a bit, and would probably be a more efficient and cost effective way of handling the problem.
As for unknown men entering my property...If they were on my land, I would certainly tell them to get off after taking their picture with a high powered zoom lens attached to my camera and call the authorities as well. If they were in my place of residence then certainly self defense would take priority. So what's your point? We are talking about a militia taking matters into their own hands, that may not be lawful, as has been already found by the courts. |
|
|
|
08/29/2005 01:53:00 PM · #31 |
"Clearly, I'd rather live in a society that has no need for guns. Most people would."
As would I...
As for a little background. This celebration was extremely disturbing. And though I drove as much as 10-20 minutes away I was unable to escape it's insanity.
Our neighborhood was terrorized by the misbehaviors. Some discussed next year having a citizens patrol. Others suggested having the streets blocked off to local traffic only. (Which I support.) However, there is much fear of a backlash by this ethnic group for any such action. And yes, people feared for their safety. People wanted to make it stop, go elsewhere, but fear that anything said above a whisper could bring about physical harm. Fears were furthered when two incidents brought numerous 911 calls to which no response was given.
If, in what may have been a life and death situation no response is given. How can a neighborhood trust for it's safety without taking matters into it's own hands. (In this case, blocking off the entrance for roads to local residents only.) And the fear being that even such a simple act could enact vengeful violence. What is someone to do?
"I would do anything but I am just really against vigilante groups in public carrying lethal weapons due to a perceived threat"
When does a perceived threat become an actual threat? once someone is injured or killed?
BTW, if I felt the need to carry a weapon...it would be a simple .22 pistol. Extremely accurate, enough to simply injure and deter and yet still potentially deadly if needed. It's not a weapon for showing off or ego. I've shot a .22 pistol before and put 5 rounds within an inch or two of each other. .22 are often recommended for women for protection because they are easily and accurately shot.
This would not be some gung-ho patrol. Nor would it be a waving of guns. Nor is it likely to happen. But as I mentioned in reference to the L.A. riots. When the government ceases to maintain control and anarachy reigns in the streets. Having access to a firearm is not insanity. Rather, it's about the only viable protection from the insanity. The other one, I would use in conjunction, is prayer, Lord willing...the prayers will work and I'll never need to use a firearm or take someone's life. But if it came to protecting my family, and the families of my friend's well-being than I am willing to do so at the cost of the lives of others.
Now realize..... I DON'T EVER WANT TO TAKE A LIFE. Doing so changes a man forever.
I am not sure of the details. But I believe my father once killed a man. There was a neighbor in the house in front of us who apparently from what I understand was drunk or high and firing a gun around (illegally - please see prior post regarding that there currently is no means to stop illegal gun ownership). Anyways, as I said I don't know the details. But apparently the guy was shooting at our house and surrounding neighbors. (Now we weren't in the woods but rather the city of San Diego and there was probably only 50ft tops between the houses. But needless to say, if bullets were striking the home of your family - you'd be pretty disconcerted.
From what I gather my father (who used to do target shooting in the desert's of southern California) took action. And subdued by force the individual. Now, I do not know if the man was killed or not - though I suspect so because my mother doesn't speak much about it. Obviously, my father was not tried and convicted because whatever had happened was deemed in self-defense of his family and home.
Is it tragedy the man was harmed....yes. But my father chose such action over risking having to cradle a dying bleeding son in his arms.
I AM NOT SAYING THESE ARE GOOD RESULTS...there never are when life is lost. But, in choosing which lives are lost...greater loss is sometimes avoided. I would choose the life of a innoncent 7 yr old girl over that of a pedophile rapist any day. Does that mean I want loss of life - no, I'd prefer to live in a perfect world. But I don't...
- The Saj
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 02:04:32 PM · #32 |
"just that when you have paramilitary groups who take the law into their own hands lynch mobs can result involving brutal murders, as has been the history of this country. Usually, these types of groups scapegoat a specific ethnicity and when the fever pitch of anger and hatred against them becomes so high innocent human lives can be lost."
Agreed, and our current laws ensured that they were able to be thrown into jail. And I agree with that. The other decisions create a dangerous precidence. That's all I've been saying.
Seeing such a decision could in fact incite some illegal immigrants to endeavor to create such a situation in order to win a similar $1 million windfall.
(As is not uncommon with vehicle accidents. A co-worker of mine was once a passenger in a friend's car. She accidentally backed up into a van full of likely illegal aliens. (We're talking 5mph bump.) He turned around to see two men lying on the ground wailing in pain faking injuries. Told them to get up, and quit faking or he'd call INS. The two men got up and drove away fine. Opportunists, will take advantage of any opportunity. This creates a dangerous opportunity.
And no, most illegals aliens aren't like the above. Most simply want to work and send money home where it has more value. But rest assured, those that are like that will take advantage. Just as they currently do.
For example, why do illegal aliens get free medical service in California while tax-paying immigrants and citizens do not?
Our whole society is becoming one that rewards criminals and wrong-doers and punishes law-abiding citizens. At what point do the law-abiding citizens decide to no longer be so?
"erhaps to businesses who hire them for meager wages and no benefits. Would going after those businesses by law enforcement possibly reduce illegal alien border crossings?"
Not feasible because no one is going to pay $10 a head of cabbage. Hence, President Bush's proposal of a short-term work VISA that would allow them to come over but also allow us to know "who" is coming over and where.
"If they were on my land, I would certainly tell them to get off after taking their picture with a high powered zoom lens attached to my camera and call the authorities as well."
[[Okay, not everyone has a high powered zoom lens. And my next question....when you ask the authorities where to send the photo and they tell you "Don't bother...cause we're not going to even look at it. Sorry..." and then after you make that phone call you find that several items were stolen out of your barn. Now repeat this process 3-4 more times. Now what do you do?
You mention calling the authorites. But what do you do WHEN THE AUTHORITIES DO NOT DO ANYTHING AND DO NOT RESPOND TO THE CALL.
This is the challenge question. This is the one I want the "liberal" answer from? I want to know what you do when you hear someone breaking into your house and call the cops and they don't get there for 40 minutes. You tell that person they are wrong for owning a gun.
]]]
"So what's your point? We are talking about a militia taking matters into their own hands, that may not be lawful, as has been already found by the courts."
Had they had legal rifles. Simply detained and called the authorities. Would that be legal? Say they even found that the tresspassers had stolen equipment. Now would it be okay for them to detain them until authorities come?
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 02:23:41 PM · #33 |
Let me add that I believe individual punitive damages are a bad thing in general. Damages should be directly related to loss and that emotional damage should be equivalent to physical damage. To state that a physical loss is worth $200,000 but emotional loss is worth $10 million is simply wrong to me.
The only case of individual punitive damages that I see is that which results in the loss of a loved one (death or mental competancy).
It's punitive (and usually unprovable damages) that are in part leading to our insurance cost crisis and many other injust court decisions.
Another reason that punitive damages are wrong is that they do not have any guidelines. For instance, I was assaulted by an ethnic group due to the color of my skin...a hate crime. But if two cases go to court there is nothing to dictate an accordance between the two when it comes to punitive damages. One could receive nothing and another $10 million.
Where as when addressing an assault charge and levying a sentence for assault there is a mandate (ie: 1-5 yrs for assault) that ensures regardless of class or ethnicity it will fall within that range so as to ensure one does not receive a single day and another a lifetime sentence for the same crime.
Punitive damages open's a pandora's box. Furthermore, I believe the only way to allow punitive damages is to ensure that all such punitive financial penalties are deeded to not go to either the defendent nor the lawyer. Said damages should go to an entity that helps to remedy the situation.
(ie: punitive damage for carelessness that leads to an oil spill in a harbor...the funds should go directly too a clean-up fund or agency like the Coast Guard.
If a chemical agent caused deformities in children and a child is born with out a foot. The economic loss of that foot is estimated to be $2 million throughout the child's lifetime. But because the company had foreknowledge of risks that it hid from the public it is given punitive damages of $80 million. Neither the defendant nor the lawyer should get that $80 million. It should go to like a children's hospital program that provides free prosthetics for children that can't afford them.
This would prevent people from using the "punitive damages" as a lotto. But allow those seeking to ensure the company receives are hearty slap on the wrist or intense spanking for their activities and wrong-doing.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 03:25:34 PM · #34 |
Speaking of people using lawsuits as lottos, here's one that bugs me:
Addicted Gambler Sues for Losses
I don't know the details so I can't judge, but this statement is a sad reflection of our society's unwillingness to take responsibility for personal actions:
"I was in a situation where this destroyed me," Burrell said in an interview. "I didn't like what I had become. I only started coming back into myself when I realized this wasn't all my fault." |
|
|
|
08/29/2005 03:32:21 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Ignoring the merits of the case, it is virtually impossible that "they were just walking through the property, probably ovlivious to the fact they were trespassing". They were NOT U.S.citizens, a fact that they MUST have been aware of, and they did NOT have permits or visas to enter the U.S., another fact that they MUST have been aware of, hence they were TRESPASSING the moment they crossed the border into the U.S., another fact that they MUST have been aware of.
And, just for my own edification, what would be your response if you found two such "oblivious" men, who you don't remember reading anywhere were any kind of threat, walking thru your apartment? |
I'm not arguing that these Salvadoran men were not guilty of entering the country illegally,... |
Perhaps not DIRECTLY, but you DID say that you didn't remember reading anywhere that they were any kind of threat, and that it sounded like they were just walking through the property, probably oblivious to the fact that they were trespassing. Forgive me, but that SOUNDS like you were implying that they were "not guilty" of anything warranting serious action.
Originally posted by Olyuzu:
...they just that when you have paramilitary groups who take the law into their own hands lynch mobs can result involving brutal murders, as has been the history of this country. |
Please name a country where history does NOT include brutal murders when paramilitary groups take the law into their own hands and become lynch mobs. You seem to be as ready to condemn an entire country ( the U.S. ) for the acts of an extreme few as you seen ready to condemn others who condemn an entire religion ( Islam ) for the acts of a few ( Islamic extremists ). Doesn't this seem to you to represent a double standard?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Usually, these types of groups scapegoat a specific ethnicity and when the fever pitch of anger and hatred against them becomes so high innocent human lives can be lost. |
True, that's why the majority of citizens deplore their actions, and why judges and juries are so harsh in their treatment of those found guilty of that type of action.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
where do these illegal aliens go when they come in the US anyway? Perhaps to businesses who hire them for meager wages and no benefits. |
While it's true that they work for lower wages and no benefits, they also live in taxpayer-subsidized housing, ride taxpayer-subsidized transportation, send their children to taxpayer-funded schools, and do not pay income taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, property taxes, etc., and do not pay for medical attention even though they do not pay for medical insurance, etc.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Would going after those businesses by law enforcement possibly reduce illegal alien border crossings? I would think it would curtail it quite a bit, and would probably be a more efficient and cost effective way of handling the problem. |
I agree. But that's not going to happen. A better way is to lobby for passage of the FAIR TAX. The FAIR TAX would completely eliminate ALL federal income taxes and replace them with a consumption based tax. That means that illegal immigrants would pay the tax on everything they purchase. LEGAL folks would receive a prebate from the federal government to offset the consumption tax on vital goods and services each month. But to receive the prebate, you have to have a valid social-security number. So, illegals would end up paying the tax but NOT getting the prebate of vital goods. There is a) an incentive to get legal, and b) a dis-incentive to remain in this country llegally.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
As for unknown men entering my property...If they were on my land, I would certainly tell them to get off after taking their picture with a high powered zoom lens attached to my camera and call the authorities as well. |
And if the authorities ( like the Border Patrol ) claimed that they were too understaffed to respond?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If they were in my place of residence then certainly self defense would take priority. So what's your point? |
My point is that the case involves some folks who were, to borrow your line of reasoning, perhaps just exercising "self defense".
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
We are talking about a militia taking matters into their own hands, that may not be lawful, as has been already found by the courts. |
You are wrong on several counts. First, the militia you speak of did NOT cross into Mexico - did NOT, in fact, even leave the land on which they had rightful occupancy. Secondly, what laws do you think that the courts had already found to be unlawful? Certainly none in this case, as pertained to the trespassers. Thirdly, the judgement was issued as a DEFAULT judgement - meaning that neither GUILT nor INNOCENCE was determined, because no trial took place. Fourthly, it was a CIVIL trial to begin with, not a criminal trial. and Lastly, the only matters that the "militia" took into their own hands was acting against TRESPASSERS on their own property - actions the likes of which YOU, yourself, say that YOU might take"
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
"self defense would take priority" |
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 04:33:36 PM · #36 |
Saj we are not going to ever agree in this sort of arguement so I am going to post here for the last time and just state my feelings having taken your points into consideration.
The discussion was on vilgilante groups policing your home area during a local ethnic celebration. It was not about protecting your (or my) daughter from being raped if you were on the scene at the time. It was not about acting in self defence if someone burgled your home. It was not about the legal ownership of guns in the USA. It was not about Mexico and the police there.
I stand by my views that anyone on the street with a gun knows they are prepared to use it and that in using it. that they are prepared to kill with it. Any gunshot wound is a possible death penalty. Even skilled marksmen (and my brother is an A class police trained marksman and bodyguard) will agree that there are extreme difficulties in shooting to wound.
Therefore to state that a vigilante group in your neighbourhood should/would be armed , I consider dangerous and wrong.
I do think that the culture in the USA is very different to that in the UK and I find it hard to understand how threatened you obviously feel in your own home. Guns to me are an extreme form of defence and I cannot perceive of any situation in the UK when I would feel the need to arm myself.
However, I still think that your neighbourhood should have a meeting with the local police and discuss methods of policing this period of time around the celebration ( I assume they occur at the same time each year). If you do go ahead and act as a vigilante group, each and every member should be aware of the possible consequences if firearms are used. And each one of you would be jointly responsible for any action by one of your group. Are you sure each member of your group is as expert as you think you are? Or as controlled when dealing with a possibly explosive situation and hot headed youngsters?
I think this is really a hyperthetical situation as you at one point said you thought it wouldn't happen but we are discussing the rights and wrongs of such groups.
So this is how I (this leftist thinker you seem to want to compartmentalise me into) considers this should be handled - but maybe you think this is naive and just rhetoric?
Or perhaps I just have more faith in law and order and my ability to avoid situations rather than react to them. And my determination to make the world around me a better place rather than just admit defeat and let the thugs alter my beliefs and act like them.
Pauline
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 04:46:18 PM · #37 |
I think it's clear that the two of you live in different worlds...Saj doesn't feel that he is protected by those authorities put there to protect him and Riponlady does feel protected.
That seems to be what's driving the opposing sentiments here, which makes perfect sense... |
|
|
|
08/29/2005 06:47:45 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Therefore to state that a vigilante group in your neighbourhood should/would be armed , I consider dangerous and wrong. |
Fair enough, but I consider calling 911 three times and not having the police respond once - much more wrong. Especially, when we were unsure if someone had possibly been killed in one of those incidents.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
I do think that the culture in the USA is very different to that in the UK and I find it hard to understand how threatened you obviously feel in your own home. Guns to me are an extreme form of defence and I cannot perceive of any situation in the UK when I would feel the need to arm myself." |
Sadly, and many will react vehemently, but currently, we have major race issues going on in this nation in certain regions. An ignorant reversal of the pendulum you could say...(reverse racism) and I add ignorant because they attack people who had no responsibility in slavery. (Not that I quite understand where hispanics come from...they were in fact one of the largest groups of slave owners. And most of their discrimination has been due to a refusal on their part to learn the common language.) Asians are one of the most targeted and abused ethnic groups...mainly because they come into the impoverished communities and suffer the skin color issues of african-americans and the language issues of hispanics but have an unbelievable work ethic for the most part and in general tend to succeed quite well within a generation or two. Anyways, we basically have a young generation who have been indoctrinated with 2 decades of "racial pride" education which has fueled a violent hatred amongst young minorities driven by an attitude of victimized. In truth, few have ever suffered the tragedies their parents and grand-parents endured. But they have become determined to enact those tragedies on others...(namely whites and asians).
Due to political correctness in these regions, one cannot speak anything against said behaviors and actions. You're a racist for doing so. Cops are afraid to act because there is so much political correctness that to act could likely cost you your job (or your life - if your name gets you targeted).
I don't think Britain has quite the racial issues and tensions. Some would argue what goes around comes around and white man is just getting what he deserves. But this is an extremely racist view. (Though one that is allowed to be spoken out loud without complaint.) Sadly, it does create an unsafe situation. And one that politics currently won't allow to be addressed.
I guess it's a good thing that I am leaving Connecticut in a few months.
***
Originally posted by "riponlady":
"However, I still think that your neighbourhood should have a meeting with the local police and discuss methods of policing this period of time around the celebration" |
Oh rest assured...and hopefully we can get our streets closed down to local traffic only. But if they refuse, then I don't think it's right nor safe to simply sit back.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
"If you do go ahead and act as a vigilante group, each and every member should be aware of the possible consequences if firearms are used." |
Very much agreed. A firearm is never to be used lightly. I grew up with a father who was opposed to letting me have water pistols. And even when he bent on that would not let me point them at someone....why? cause he was a registered pistol owner and would actually walk around town with his pistol...legally. And understood the potential result of pointing a barrel at someone.
And the whole group would not be carrying firearms. Just one or two trained and certified individuals who in would be on hand in case a situation occurred that required a demonstration of action of force.
No this is a much more valid answer. And allows me to fill in how things would be worked out. For instance, had there been a patrol and the incident with the jeep occurred. We would have called on a radio and notified a neighbor that x-vehicle was approaching. Try to identify the license plate. The problem....just doing that...might trigger a reaction if spotted.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Or perhaps I just have more faith in law and order and my ability to avoid situations rather than react to them. And my determination to make the world around me a better place rather than just admit defeat and let the thugs alter my beliefs and act like them. |
Quite probably. But I wonder if you've been thru as much injustice. Perhaps you have. But have you been beaten down in broad daylight because of the color of your skin and watched the police walk away to avoid the issue. Have you been forced to sit in certain areas of the bus. Have you been harassed and maligned day after day in the classrooms of high school because you wore the wrong skin color?
If I lived in an area where the police responded, or at least endeavored to do so. I would not feel the way I do. Thatcloudthere is pretty much right on. I want to not have to defend myself...but if you saw an individual acting violent and threatening a cashier in a violent rage while you were in a gas station and making death threats. And when you called 911 the operator responded "It's London...what do you want us to do about it?"
Do you think you'd feel safe or trust such a police force?
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 11:32:17 PM · #39 |
It doesn't sound like the entire story is being reported about what happened on this ranch in Hebbronville, Texas. Three men were sued and not one of them is appealing? Ranch Rescue could not raise funds from their members for their appeals?
who was the judge in the case, and did they all settle out of court?
From the Ranch Rescue web site:
"We are private Citizens who recognize that America became a prosperous nation due to the sanctity of private property acquired, owned, utilized, and held by individual Citizens and not by government entities or so-called "activist" groups.
"We completely reject and oppose Socialism in all of its forms, for Socialism's central objective is the abolition of all private property rights for individual Citizens.
"We completely reject and oppose all Environmentalist measures, proposals, and agendas for the same reason. Private property first, foremost, and always. Everything else is not even a close second."
I find it very curious that this group takes issue with socialism and environmentalism. What has that got to do with saving ranches? Certainly illegal aliens do not come to America to promote social and environmental issues!
I'm wondering if there is any treaspass issue at all in this case. I wonder if something else more serious happened against the Salvadorans.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 12:07:02 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I find it very curious that this group takes issue with socialism and environmentalism. What has that got to do with saving ranches? |
Simple, socialism and environmentalism, at least in their eyes, seeks to take away the rights of property owners to do with their property as they see fit. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 04:03:51 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 04:03:51 AM EDT.
|
