Gun Nuts: Why the double standard?

LadyT said:
Oh, I do think guns should be illegal. This kid would be alive otherwise.

But if you're going to have a standard, it should be applied to everyone equally. And if gun nuts are going to proclaim the second amendment as a reason to 'bear arms' and that they are needed for protection, this would have the poster child for such an argument.
Click to expand...
And had guns been illegal Mr. White would have been the victim of a beating if not murder. That is the world you want. I know I know, no where did you say that is the world you want, but in your perfect world with no guns Mr. White would have been beaten by this gang of thugs. In your world no one has the right defend themselves or their family from being harmed or killed. The police will do that right. Just dial 911 and they will be their lickity split. Just ask all the women that have called 911 just before their husbands and boyfriends beat them to death, or the women that have called 911 to report an intruder only to be raped or robbed or both before the cops got there. Lets all just be a society where ONLY the criminals have guns and the police get there whenever they can. You world has far more victims than mine does. At least 800,000 more per year.
 
Technically I think Mr. whites gun was illegal. correct me if I am wrong but I have always heard it is illegal to posess a handgun in NY without it being registered with the state.
 
uscitizen said:
Technically I think Mr. whites gun was illegal. correct me if I am wrong but I have always heard it is illegal to posess a handgun in NY without it being registered with the state.
Click to expand...
Probably true but states usually have exceptions for self defense though he lost that too. So punish him for possession of an illegal fire arm. But he is still alive. In my world only the agressor is a criminal. In your world and NYC the victim is a criminal too.
 
Watermark said:
People who use an unreasonable level of force in "defending" themselves are criminals, Soc. You just want to unleash everyone to use an unlimited amount of force for anything, which I think is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. I have never advocated shooting someone for taking a punch at you. But when a group of people come at you to attack you, your life is in danger. One man can kill another with his hands. Serveral can easily beat a man to death. Force has to always be measured and never more than the attacker is coming with. But when someone gets out of a car and says "I'm going to kill you and he brought friends and they are ALL walking at you, deadly force is acceptable. You just want everyone to be a victim and hope that the police get there in time. Like I said earlier, tell that to the women in this world that were beaten, some to death, AFTER they called 911. I bet their mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and all their other family members wish they had a gun to defend themselves, even though a man beat them with his hands.
 
Socrtease said:
Bullshit. I have never advocated shooting someone for taking a punch at you. But when a group of people come at you to attack you, your life is in danger. One man can kill another with his hands. Serveral can easily beat a man to death. Force has to always be measured and never more than the attacker is coming with. But when someone gets out of a car and says "I'm going to kill you and he brought friends and they are ALL walking at you, deadly force is acceptable. You just want everyone to be a victim and hope that the police get there in time. Like I said earlier, tell that to the women in this world that were beaten, some to death, AFTER they called 911. I bet their mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and all their other family members wish they had a gun to defend themselves, even though a man beat them with his hands.
Click to expand...

I deleted that, Soc, it's not fair to use it.
 
I don't actually believe that people who used deadly force in defending themselves are actually criminals, even if upon reflection it wasn't entirely necessary, as long as they honestly believed it was necessary. B/c it's often a snap, heat of the moment decision.

I was just angry at you for the other gun thread, and hadn't even read this one.
 
A pretty clear case of self-defense, actually defense of your loved ones, in the face of a very real and potentially fatal threat. When a "gang" of people come after one guy, "fighting" isn't the only thing they are likely to do. You'd be foolish to assume you'd be fine afterward. The father acted reasonably and prudently IMHO.

It's tragic that the kid was killed, of course. When you decide you can freely assault someone with a bunch of your friends helping out, getting dead is one of the possible results - something the kid and his gang friends should have kept in mind. Thanks in part to the gun-grabbers and anti-rights folks, many such thugs apparently think they don't have to worry about that.

It would have been even more tragic if the son whose father defended him, had been killed by the gang of thugs instead, which was a real possibility. That kid hadn't assaulted anyone, that I could see frm the story.

BTW, I'll bet that family hasn't had very many people coming over to mess with them since then. Just talk from the deceased's loudmouth father, apparently.

A double standard, where the father who defended his son's life, gets thrown in jail? I can think of no excuse for that. Better ask your gun-grabbing friends why they think self defense, and even basic gun ownership, merits a sentence like that. I agree that it's VERY unfair.

BTW, do you like the way LadyT addressed people who believe in Constitutional gun rights, as "gun nuts" in her title? Pretty similar to addressing black people as "niggers", sight unseen. Doesn't surprise me, from the kind of people I've found on the left side of this board. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It's kinda funny, in my family, we keep firearms to protect ourselves from crazy white people. Usually the kind that have fantasies about Nazi fascism.

Can anyone direct me to where the article indicates the people going after this man are "gun nuts"? Or are we supposed to derive from the posting that because the indictment is both unfair and racist in nature that it must be carried out by right-wing authoritarians?

The fact is, leftists carry out dirty, racist government policy all the time, and usually in the name of fighting "crime". Might I add that this kind of stuff is just one more reason the left in this country is so wussified an doesn't have the necessary chutzpah where it counts. They'll replace real strength to defend basic principles with dangerous shows of force, in the hopes the other side won't call them "weak"...which they will anyway.

Someone who truly believes in the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment would not deprive a person of their rights on a basis of color or creed.

The double standard is from those who think that "urban" populations can't be trusted with the same right to protect themselves as white populations do.

Republicans, for all their faults, do vote in DC to let "urban populations" as some slyly call them, keep and bear arms. For instance, recent legislation to assure the Second Amendment was respected in public housing.

Whether the GOP as a whole understands much else about civil liberty or equality under the law, that is another story.
 
Last edited:
Adam Weinberg said:
It's kinda funny, in my family, we keep firearms to protect ourselves from crazy white people. Usually the kind that have fantasies about Nazi fascism.

Can anyone direct me to where the article indicates the people going after this man are "gun nuts"? Or are we supposed to derive from the posting that because the indictment is both unfair and racist in nature that it must be carried out by right-wing authoritarians?

The fact is, leftists carry out dirty, racist government policy all the time, and usually in the name of fighting "crime".

Someone who truly believes in the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment would not deprive a person of their rights on a basis of color or creed.

The double standard is from those who think that "urban" populations can't be trusted with the same right to protect themselves as white populations do.

Republicans, for all their faults, do vote in DC to let "urban populations" as some slyly call them, keep and bear arms. For instance, recent legislation to assure the Second Amendment was respected in public housing.

Whether the GOP as a whole understands much else about civil liberty or equality under the law, that is another story.
Click to expand...

I will say for trying to get people to take her side of the story LadyT sure did a good job of offending them first. We may have to send her to a Dale Carnagie's 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' training.
 
LadyT said:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6029790

John White (Who's ironically Black) defends his home and his property with a gun after being threatened by a mob of drunken racist mafia wannabe's and he gets sentenced to 2 years in prison. Whatever happened to "the right bear arms"?

Darla, this was in your neck of the woods were you following this case at all?
Click to expand...
This is an interesting case. IMO the man should not have been convicted.

But, by the title of your post, you imply that we "gun nuts" would agree with the verdict. Why that assumption? Because the man was black?

Where is the double standard? Have you already heard from those you label "gun nuts" who have agreed with the verdict? I am willing to bet not one "gun nut" agrees with the results of this case, as the facts have been presented.

And yes, I AM a "gun nut". I believe in the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Not only should I be able to own guns, but the choice of guns I own should not be limited to weapons with less capability than carried by soldiers of the U.S. military.
 
Many gun laws are written for the purpose of disarming blacks in particular. Laws in Missouri, Kansas etc. require people to get permits of one kind or another, to own a gun, and the permit application must be signed by the local sheriff or other law enforcement leader. And the officer routinely approves most white applicants, but never approves blacks.

Nothing new about that, been true for ages.
 
"BTW, do you like the way LadyT addressed people who believe in Constitutional gun rights, as "gun nuts" in her title? Pretty similar to addressing black people as "niggers", sight unseen. Doesn't surprise me, from the kind of people I've found on the left side of this board"

What a childish thing to say. I believe in Constitutional gun rights, but I know LadyT wasn't addressing me with "gun nut." Gun nuts know who they are.
 
Little-Acorn said:
A pretty clear case of self-defense, actually defense of your loved ones, in the face of a very real and potentially fatal threat. When a "gang" of people come after one guy, "fighting" isn't the only thing they are likely to do. You'd be foolish to assume you'd be fine afterward. The father acted reasonably and prudently IMHO.

It's tragic that the kid was killed, of course. When you decide you can freely assault someone with a bunch of your friends helping out, getting dead is one of the possible results - something the kid and his gang friends should have kept in mind. Thanks in part to the gun-grabbers and anti-rights folks, many such thugs apparently think they don't have to worry about that.

It would have been even more tragic if the son whose father defended him, had been killed by the gang of thugs instead, which was a real possibility. That kid hadn't assaulted anyone, that I could see frm the story.

BTW, I'll bet that family hasn't had very many people coming over to mess with them since then. Just talk from the deceased's loudmouth father, apparently.

A double standard, where the father who defended his son's life, gets thrown in jail? I can think of no excuse for that. Better ask your gun-grabbing friends why they think self defense, and even basic gun ownership, merits a sentence like that. I agree that it's VERY unfair.

BTW, do you like the way LadyT addressed people who believe in Constitutional gun rights, as "gun nuts" in her title? Pretty similar to addressing black people as "niggers", sight unseen. Doesn't surprise me, from the kind of people I've found on the left side of this board. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are a gun nut.
 
Good Luck said:
This is an interesting case. IMO the man should not have been convicted.

But, by the title of your post, you imply that we "gun nuts" would agree with the verdict. Why that assumption? Because the man was black?

Where is the double standard? Have you already heard from those you label "gun nuts" who have agreed with the verdict? I am willing to bet not one "gun nut" agrees with the results of this case, as the facts have been presented.

And yes, I AM a "gun nut". I believe in the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Not only should I be able to own guns, but the choice of guns I own should not be limited to weapons with less capability than carried by soldiers of the U.S. military.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's not expanding the second ammendment at all.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
It's kinda funny, in my family, we keep firearms to protect ourselves from crazy white people. Usually the kind that have fantasies about Nazi fascism.

Can anyone direct me to where the article indicates the people going after this man are "gun nuts"? Or are we supposed to derive from the posting that because the indictment is both unfair and racist in nature that it must be carried out by right-wing authoritarians?

The fact is, leftists carry out dirty, racist government policy all the time, and usually in the name of fighting "crime". Might I add that this kind of stuff is just one more reason the left in this country is so wussified an doesn't have the necessary chutzpah where it counts. They'll replace real strength to defend basic principles with dangerous shows of force, in the hopes the other side won't call them "weak"...which they will anyway.

Someone who truly believes in the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment would not deprive a person of their rights on a basis of color or creed.

The double standard is from those who think that "urban" populations can't be trusted with the same right to protect themselves as white populations do.

Republicans, for all their faults, do vote in DC to let "urban populations" as some slyly call them, keep and bear arms. For instance, recent legislation to assure the Second Amendment was respected in public housing.

Whether the GOP as a whole understands much else about civil liberty or equality under the law, that is another story.
Click to expand...

Maybe the black people who vote en masse for the handgun ban and for the people on the city council who support it are unwittingly depriving themselves of their own choice? This argument makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top