Master Blaster
by Lee
Yesterday I wrote a post about self defense with a gun, and I posed the following question.
A question for those of you who live in Europe or Australia, or for you Americans who support gun control. If you found yourself in your house confronting a lunatic who broke in and charged at you, what would you use to defend yourself? And as you lay there in a pool of your own blood, the screams of your wife and children being raped and strangled ringing in your ears, do you think at some point you might have the thought, “If only I had a gun...”?
Well, ask and I shall receive, from a reader in Australia. Before I begin, let me state that it’s a pleasure to get an email like this, rather than the “Bush = Hitler” crap I usually get.
Lee,
I write to you with some caution, as I am usually not an enthusiastic participant in ‘net “arguments”, as they very rarely result in anything other than all sides of the debate being convinced that they were completely right, and that all the other participants just don’t understand their perspective. I freely admit that I am pretty much what you would consider a left-wing ‘ass-hat’, given my political views on taxation, national defence, current US and Australian military policy, government spending, capital punishment, abortion and employment policy. I am also from Melbourne, Australia, a country which I understand you have some first-hand experience of.
I have an honest questions based on your post, where I would value your perspective.
You mention that the United States has a unique right to defend yourself, and a right to be secure. Could you explain what you see as the basis for this right, and why this is unique to the United States? Is this something which you consider derives from the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, or are there other provisions relating to this area, of which I may well be unaware?
It’s not so much that the Second Amendment is the basis for the right. The Second Amendment is simply the legal codification of the right to self defense. Whether this defense is used against an intruder in your home or to fight off a tyrannical government is immaterial. You have to remember that America is a country founded by revolution. An army largely comprised of uneducated rabble took on and defeated the British Army, one of the greatest fighting forces in the world at that time. A bunch of drooling, illiterate continental scum kicked the ass of the powdered wig brigade. So how could the new government immediately turn around and remove from these revolutionaries the very means by which they could overthrow the new government they were about to create? The Declaration of Independence spells out this principle pretty clearly.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In other words, governments are a necessary evil. Hopefully the government will work for the good of the people. However, if it turns out that the government begins to work against the good of the people it is the right of the people to take matters in their own hands, dissolve that government, and institute a new one. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
So the idea of enabling the people to defend themselves by force is one of the hallmark ideals on which this country was founded. When the Constitution was ratified in 1789 there was a compromise made between two factions. One faction thought that the Constitution, as it was written, did not do enough to explicitly list the rights of the people. The other faction thought that this was unnecessary, because the Constitution is nothing more than a list of restrictions on the power of government, and thus the right of the people would be protected by proxy. The compromise was that if the group who wanted the specific rights detailed would vote to ratify the Constitution, the first act of the new government would be to add a “Bill of Rights” through the amendment process, specifically listing the rights of the people. This Bill is the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
The First Amendment details the rights of freedom of religion, of assembly of the press, and of speech. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, a free people cannot truly be called free if they are beholden for their security on someone or something else. This goes for personal as well as political freedom. If you are cowering in your house, afraid for your own safety to go outside, can you truly be considered free? This applies just as much if I live in a high-crime area as it does being afraid to travel because of the threat of terrorism. Free people cannot, by their very definition, be afraid. This is the essence of the America belief system.
It’s worth noting that, in the history of mankind, there has never been a genocide committed against an armed population. The first thing a despotic power does is disarm the public. (Look at the Russian revolution for just one example.) An honest, benign government has nothing to fear from an armed population. So while I think the likelihood of my family and me being rounded up in cattle cars and shipped off to death camps is pretty remote, let’s not forget that Europe was full of Jews at one time who would have told you exactly the same thing.
I will also take up the challenge of responding to your question to the residents of Australia, regarding your hypothetical situation. If (1) I was alone in my home, and (2) someone had managed to break in, and (3) that person was going to seriously injure me or my family, then of course it is preferable to have access to a weapon of some kind. It is also true that if I was bitten by a rattlesnake, it would be handy to have anti-venin with me. It is also true that if I was kidnapped and thrown into Port Phillip Bay, that it would be preferable to have a scuba tank.
However, people are never going to base all of their decisions upon the ‘what-if’ of only one hypothetical situation. You have balanced all of your considerations (including risks, dangers, etc.) and have concluded that it is in your interests to have a loaded firearm easily accessible to you within your home. I do not presume to agree or disagree, but rather state that I do not have your first-hand knowledge of your particular circumstances. I, in my residential situation, choose not to have a firearm in my home. I accept that there is a possibility that there may be a situation when a firearm is desirable. I also consider there are situations where I would regret having a firearm in the home. Balancing these possibilities, I do not choose to have a firearm in my home or my possession. Part of my decision is based upon the lack of firearms in both my local community and my city.
But the beauty of the American system is the freedom of choice. If you want guns in your house then you are free to have them. If you choose not to have them for any reason at all then you are not required to do so. It is worth noting that the areas of America with the highest rates of personal crime, especially crime committed with a firearm, are the areas with the highest amounts of gun control. And the areas with the highest rates of legal gun ownership also have the lowest rates of gun crime. I’m perfectly willing to accept that the social dynamic varies from country to country, and that a country like Australia with no real history of firearms ownership might take better to certain types of gun control.
That being said, it’s worth noting that there are higher crime rates in Australia for many types of personal injury crime (assaults, rapes, muggings, burglary, etc.) than there is in most of America. So there is a trade off. If a criminal knows that they don’t really stand any chance of being hurt if they break into a house while the family is home, then what is to stop them from doing so? Also, there’s another point that I raised back in November of 2002, where I blogged on Australia banning 250 different types of handguns after a shooting.
If I remember correctly there were roughly 60 gun deaths in Australia last year. According to the CIA World Factbook Australia’s population is just under 20 million. That’s an insignificant amount of deaths by guns. The Australians should be heralding the success of their gun control policies, that in a country of 20 million people they only have a paltry 60 gun deaths per year. I have no figures to back this up, but I would be willing to bet money that more than 60 people die there each year from insect and animal bites. From a strictly numerical standpoint their existing gun control laws are working exceptionally well for them.
So why the hysteria every time someone gets shot?
They appear to be trying to achieve the unachievable—a country in which nobody dies from a gunshot. And they are willing to do anything to achieve that goal, including taking pistols away from sportsmen. As anyone who has done even the most cursory evaluation of gun control statistics in this country can tell you, this is going to do absolutely nothing to solve what miniscule gun problem they have there. All it is going to do is deny sportsmen the instruments with which to shoot, and provide incentives for ciminals to increase their activity against an unarmed population.
Eventually there comes a point where the cure is worse than the disease. It’s up to each society to determine that point for themselves, of course, but the point is always there.
Without in any way trying to curry your approval, I may say that I often read your ‘blog to get a conservative/libertarian perspective on current events, and greatly respect the fact that you have maintained your principles, even when they have been at odds with the opinions of a number of your ‘commenters’.
Tim
Melbourne, Australia.
Thanks, Tim, I appreciate that. It’s good to know that people who disagree with me can recognize that I’m sticking to my guns, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Comments
The Europeans are still scratching their heads over how those uncouth, knuckledragging Americans made their Revolution actually work. In Europe, revolutions have historically led to dictatorships or compromises with the monarchy. We were able to break free from European rule and create our own unique history.
He might want to follow that up with a reading of Walter Russell Mead’s “The Jacksonian Tradition” to further illustrate the self-determination ideas and self-defense aspects of American life.
I think Tim’s best line was this:
Part of my decision is based upon the lack of firearms in both my local community and my city.
There is a different culture of gun ownership in Australia and thus it’s very difficult to compare to the situation in the US. Americans may regard us as being ridiculous because of our fear of guns while we regard them as being gun toting retards that blaze away at eachother whenever they get a little hot under the collar.
With that in mind I think it’s best to agree to disagree on the issue of gun control in these countries. We have very different backgrounds (e.g. US was founded through war, AUS not) and I think that citizens of both countries should respect that and be a little more accepting.
Personally I have little to say about American gun control as I have leaned to realise that the American situation is unique and cannot be compared to the situation in Australia. However I take great offence when Australia is ridiculed as some kind of over-protective nanny state that is obsessed with child proofing all the proverbial sharp edges. I’m a fan of this site and also of Moorewatch but it really pisses me off when Lee goes off about the issue of Australia and guns. Fair go Lee.
The scenario you lay out of an intruder raping and murdering your family...how often does something like that take place? In purely philosophical terms, it can and sometimes does happen, but adding the third dimension of statistics to the argument shows how rare of an occurance this is. Much more frequent are gang-related murders with stolen guns, and unfortunately child deaths by means of a gunshot wound.
The argument always gets boiled down to the simplistic philosophical stance that you’re either for or against the second ammendment, but we’re more than capable of looking at this intelligently. For me, the problem isn’t our right to bear arms, or the amount of guns private owners possess, but instead the amount of attention given to the security of these weapons.
When a handgun is stolen from a home in Kansas, it can end up being used in a murder in Baltimore and tossed over a bridge or down a storm drain a year later. When a gun is stolen by a child, it can be brought to school and we all know what can happen in that scenario.
I propose that we continue along the idea of ‘personal responsibility’ and start requiring gun owners to secure their weapons or face consequences for not doing so. The right to bear arms is available to us all, but so should the responsibility of that right when it comes to innocent people being killed due to gun owner negligence.
In my estimation, the parents of those students who went on a shooting spree in the Columbine massacre were partly responsible for what took place. The media focus was firmly aimed at the abstract, the age-old question of how to better raise our children...and the politicians deflected attention from the question of fault in terms of the actual events that transpired to allow for the event to take place, and instead focused on the influences within our society that ‘could have’ instilled the sickness of indifference these kids surely suffered from. In both instances, the target is being purposely missed in my opinion.
Why shouldn’t parents who make deadly weapons available to children not be held accountable in some way for the role they played in the death of others? Why shouldn’t the gun collector who failed to secure their weapons not be held accountable for supplying murders their black market weapons? If we’re stressing ‘personal responsibility’ along with the gift of the freedom we enjoy, how much longer can we simply ignore a clear cause of these tragedies?
If the parents of nearly every school shooting had better secured their weapons, the murders would not have taken place. As ‘easy’ as we assume it is to get a gun on the black market in America, I’m not buying the fact that a kid in a suburb can acquire one as easily as we say. The gun lobby directs this debate and consistently scores in boiling this argument down to ‘you’re either against or for the second ammendment’, when the problem has statistics and clear room for legislative improvement.
The right to own a gun should be removed from the argument altogether, and instead the discussion should shift to how we can prevent future murders. I would like to see the parents of the Columbine students face manslaughter charges, and the gun owner who failed to properly secure their weapons and made them easy for a crook to steal should pay a fine and/or be forced to complete community service. If your incompetence leads to a child obtaining your weapon, it should be considered criminal. If your incompetence leads to a criminal obtaining your weapon, you should be forced to pay society back for the potential murder weapon you allowed your firearm to become.
The NRA would argue against any restrictions on gun ownership, but if they were not allowed to consistently simplify the argument to ‘against/for the second ammendment’ like they have been for years - we could actually create some positive laws that would save lives while also assuring that our right to bear arms would not be affected. We can’t just do nothing. I’m rather tired of school shootings, and as a parent with twins on the way, the idea of sending my kids off to school to never come home because of my fellow parent’s incompetence...we have the data and the means to fix this problem. It’s time we shed the simplistic philosophical/historical banter that’s gone unchanged for decades, and instead focus on the current problems and how to prevent them, while also increasing the viability of truly calling ourselves a society built upon the ideal of ‘personal responsibility’.
a modern, reasonably well-equipped police force and army that don’t care about causing collateral damage or taking a few casualties in their own ranks have nothing to fear from a bunch of gun nuts.
First, many of those being sent out would have to turn in their own guns first.
Second, there are an estimated 250 million guns out there in America, ranging from high-powered hunting rifles (useful for snipers) to easily concealed handguns, and roughly 80 million gun owners.
Which nation would be crazy enough to take on such a powerful group? Exactly. Second Amendment Mission One Acoomplished.
Second, imagine how much more powerful the insurgents in Iraq would be if they actually had the popular support of the native population. Why? Because we don’t have the kind of manpower it takes to cover the whole nation.
The United States is many times larger than Iraq, with many times the population. What level of troop strength would it take to control her citizens when every 15-year-old gang banger can lay hands on a gun with high cyclic rate and some explosives?
Bill Whittle posed an interesting problem that explains why the Second Amendment works:
Kick down 100 doors of self-proclaimed French pacifists, grab the women and kids, and haul them away. Then try again in Texas, with 100 NRA members. Collate, or rather, have a surviving relative collate the results. Extrapolate the abductors’ rates of casualties to determine the total number of murdering swine needed. See what percentage of jackbooted thugs have a suicide wish and then determine the number of men you will need to disarm, kidnap and murder 50 million armed people.
You will need a lot of men. More than you can raise.
I agree.
Kick down 100 doors of self-proclaimed French pacifists, grab the women and kids, and haul them away. Then try again in Texas, with 100 NRA members. Collate, or rather, have a surviving relative collate the results. Extrapolate the abductors’ rates of casualties to determine the total number of murdering swine needed. See what percentage of jackbooted thugs have a suicide wish and then determine the number of men you will need to disarm, kidnap and murder 50 million armed people.
You will need a lot of men. More than you can raise.
I agree.
Drumwaster - I have to agree with you on this point. The second ammendment was placed that high up on the totem pole for a reason, and more than a hundred years before Nazis cleared out neighborhoods just as the writer above described. It’s so far away from our reality today that people forget that just a half century ago it happened, and in Africa it still happens.
The United States is many times larger than Iraq, with many times the population. What level of troop strength would it take to control her citizens when every 15-year-old gang banger can lay hands on a gun with high cyclic rate and some explosives?
On the 15-year-old gangbanger obtaining weapons on the black market, I think we can get our arms around that problem with some good old fashioned legislation aimed at strenghtening the reality of ‘personal responsibility’ within our society (refer to my above post for elaboration on this topic).
"That high up on the Totem pole”? What are you talking about? Are you attempting to imply that the First outranks the Second, which outranks the Third, and so on?
Because the Second Amendment was actually the fourth in line when originally submitted. The first Amendment actually suggested involved the apportionment of Representatives and the second involved the compensation of elected officials (which was eventually ratified in May 1992, and became the 27th Amendment).
But for what it’s worth, the government has never tried to quarter troops in my home, so no matter what may have happened to the rest of the Constitution, the Third Amendment is alive and well.
In my estimation, the parents of those students who went on a shooting spree in the Columbine massacre were partly responsible for what took place.
The Columbine students obtained their firearms through a third party, in violation of numerous state and federal laws that are already on the books. Other than not being home enough to raise their kids right, what did the parents do?
”How many more people have to die before no one ever dies again?”The right to own a gun should be removed from the argument altogether, and instead the discussion should shift to how we can prevent future murders.
and in Africa it still happens.
Crooked cops been doing it in Brazil. It happens in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America. We are the freak safe-zone.
Deadissue,
The problem with and the reason why your point has been rejected is because it shifts the responsibility away from the person misusing the weapon.
I fail to see how I could be responsible for a murder committed by another if my weapons are taken from me without my knowledge or consent.
Sorry, but the responsibility of someone using a gun to kill someone rests squarely on the person who pulls the trigger.
When will people understand? Happiness is a warm gun.
Sorry, but the responsibility of someone using a gun to kill someone rests squarely on the person who pulls the trigger.
And the responsibility for stealing property lies with the thief, not the person who forgot to lock their car.
Very true, although I do get an overwhelming desire to slap those that leave their keys/valuables in the car. But only because they Bitch at me that their car was stolen.
Posted by Jason on 04/11 at 09:27 AM
When will people understand? Happiness is a warm gun.
Puppy...gun...same thing.
;-)
With that in mind I think it’s best to agree to disagree on the issue of gun control in these countries. We have very different backgrounds (e.g. US was founded through war, AUS not)
Correct me if I am wrong, but was not AUS founded as a prison, of the British Empire (at that time)?
PS. Feels good to be back posting after having Techinal Difficulties.
The UK has the strongest democratic traditions in Europe, and also the strictest gun control.
I noticed that you forgot to mention that the UK has one of the highest crime rates of the Western Europe countries you mentioned. You might have mentioned that the Crime Rate soared in the UK as soon as your gun control policies were enacted.
But yet is seems that people in the UK who believe that by passing and enacting a gun control policy, either turn a blind eye to those little facts or choose to be totally ignorant of them.
The scenario you lay out of an intruder raping and murdering your family...how often does something like that take place?
It only needs to happen to you and your family once.
If your incompetence leads to a child obtaining your weapon, it should be considered criminal. If your incompetence leads to a criminal obtaining your weapon, you should be forced to pay society back for the potential murder weapon you allowed your firearm to become.
If a gun owner stores his gun in a locked safe and a criminal then somehow steals the whole safe from the gun owner house, finds the gun that was stored within the safe, then uses that gun to commit a murder, would you consider that imcompentence by the gun owner, and then would the gun owner be held liable, in your view.
I’m rather tired of school shootings, and as a parent with twins on the way, the idea of sending my kids off to school to never come home because of my fellow parent’s incompetence…
Maybe you should think of sending your kids to private school then.
What a great e-mail from a self-described “lefty”. This is not the sort of liberal that should wear the label of “asshat”, in my opinion.
I haven’t read the other comments so if this was mentioned, sorry. I disagree that the 2nd Amendment is the codification for self-defense. I can see where it might look that way, but actually it is just what it is, the codification of the right to bear arms.
The uniquely American perspective is that this right already existed. In fact, all the rights in the Bill of Rights exist. They were written down as a non-exhaustive list simply because some States were leary that if they weren’t specifically mentioned the Federal Government might someday try to say the rights don’t, in fact, exist.
The right to own and/or carry a gun is not the right to use that gun on somebody else. The right to self-defense is real, but only exercisable in certain circumstances. In most jurisdictions it boils down to “reasonable fear” coupled with “reasonable force”. A few examples:
1. From what Lee has described of himself, he’s a pretty big guy. If a 5 year old child were to come up and threaten his life, without any sort of weapon just all 3’2” of him standing there shaking a tiny fist at Lee. Even if the kid is serious, there is no “reasonable fear” on the part of Lee. So Lee cannot shoot the kid, or even punch him, then claim self-defense.
2. A guy Lee’s size comes up and shakes his fist in Lee’s face yelling something about right wing fascists and how he’s going to knock Lee’s teeth down his throat. From the man’s demeanor Lee believes the man will try just that. That’s “reasonable fear”. Lee can now use the amount of force necessary to defend himself, and no more. In other words, a person cannot pull a gun out and blow someone away if less force would have reasonably been used - despite the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
Sean,
You’re pretty much correct on the first situation. BUT (And a big one!) Deadly Force could be legally justifiable and defended in a Court of law.
The application of Deadly force doesn’t just apply to the immenent threat of death, it includes the immenent threat of great bodily harm as well.
And to clarify, that applies to situation #2.
The scenario you lay out of an intruder raping and murdering your family...how often does something like that take place?
How often does your house burn down? But you still have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, right? Why? Since the chances of their ever being needed are pretty miniscule, why keep them around? Perhaps because the one time you need them you’ll be glad you have them?
DaCopper: and the brand new golf clubs are always in the trunk along with all the silver.
To place blame on the person whose gun is stolen is just another liberal way of diverting from the true crime which would be the burglary, possession of stolen property, etc. Making a victim out of the actor (as the bad guys are referred to in NJ criminal law) Life in prison without parole is the only means to knock down the gun violence. Nothing less, no parole.
Det. 1st (ret)
How often does your house burn down? But you still have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, right? Why? Since the chances of their ever being needed are pretty miniscule, why keep them around? Perhaps because the one time you need them you’ll be glad you have them?
I never said that people shouldn’t own guns. My point was that in the spectrum of issues regarding guns in this country, the occurance of this is rare compared with other things. The second ammendment is on the side of someone who wants to protect themselves, so what the hell are we discussing this scenario so often for?
Rehashing the obvious over and over in terms of this issue does nothing to improve the situation in terms of identifying gaps in our legislation that if addressed, could save lives. There are steps that can be taken to curb the amount of innocent people who are killed each year by guns, but as long as the conversation remains a repetitive loop of the obvious, it won’t get better.
See what I was getting at?
I watched the Rodney Riots when I was living in Southern Cal. Nothing else was on. Anyhow, they burned down lots of businesses. But I also vividly remember some buildings that didn’t burn down or were looted. They had people who had their own weapons actively deterring those that would cause them harm.
Drumwaster said: ‘“That high up on the Totem pole”? What are you talking about? Are you attempting to imply that the First outranks the Second, which outranks the Third, and so on? ‘
No - I was thinking along the lines of it being an original ammendment as opposed to those that were made law in subsequent years. I’m on the side of the second ammendment and rebuke arguments against sometimes by pointing out that it was there from the beginning.
spoony: Just about the only good thing I saw during the riots were those South Koreans defending their property.
DaCooper wrote:
Deadissue,
The problem with and the reason why your point has been rejected is because it shifts the responsibility away from the person misusing the weapon.
I fail to see how I could be responsible for a murder committed by another if my weapons are taken from me without my knowledge or consent.
Sorry, but the responsibility of someone using a gun to kill someone rests squarely on the person who pulls the trigger.
I distinguish between parents who do not secure their guns and gun owners whose weapons are stolen by adults. In the case of an adult who steals a weapon and uses it in a murder, a misdemeanor charge and subsequent fine/community service should be issued for the owner’s failure to secure their weapons properly.
If your child takes your weapon and uses it to kill someone, the stakes should be higher. A child is not an adult...as much as we’d like to treat them as such when it’s convenient. If parents want to have children, they should bear responsibility in cases where their negligence regarding securing their weapons equals someone else losing a son or daughter.
Once a few parents are charged, you’ll see the occurance of school shootings go back to being a rarity, as opposed to a regular occurance as they have sadly become since Columbine.
Something has to change, and in a lot of these cases where kids kill other kids...whether accidental or on purpose, it’s because their guardian acted inapropriately in not securing their weapons where the child could not get them.
Another quick point for Tim of Melbourne.
Even if you don’t choose to own a gun here in the US, you can feel safer in that anyone breaking into your house doesn’t know that. As far as any burglars/rapists etc. are concerned if they break in to your house they might be end up looking down the barrel of a .45.
If you then claim, “well then, the burglars are more likely to pack weapons themselves, making you less safe.” My answer would have to be look at the statistics. You’ll find your best best is not to dissallow people from owning guns, criminals may be stupid but at least they posses a sense of self preservation that can be counted on.
Arch Angel wrote:
If a gun owner stores his gun in a locked safe and a criminal then somehow steals the whole safe from the gun owner house, finds the gun that was stored within the safe, then uses that gun to commit a murder, would you consider that imcompentence by the gun owner, and then would the gun owner be held liable, in your view.
Definitely not. Legislation would specify what is required to consider a weapon ‘secured’. And the main aim of this law would be to make sure that collectors with mini-arsenauls in their homes ensure a burgular can’t leave with said arsenal.
If home-owner’s insurance is being used to compensate someone for a firearm that has been stolen, an investigation should be initiated to determine whether the home it was stolen from had adequate security according to the law.
A handgun could be kept in a drawer...I don’t think the problem is single revolvers entering the black market as much as it’s cache of weapons being lifted all at once.
If children under 18 are in the house, a lockbox should exist somewhere in the house.
errr, change “might be end up looking down the barrel of a .45” to “might end up looking down the barrel of a .45”. LOL. Interesting typo.
James reminded me of one of my favorite movie quotes.
Bullet Tooth Tony: So, you are obviously the big dick. The men on the side of ya are your balls. There are two types of balls. There are big brave balls, and there are little mincey faggot balls.
Vinny: These are your last words, so make them a prayer.
Bullet Tooth Tony: Now, dicks have drive and clarity of vision, but they are not clever. They smell pussy and they want a piece of the action. And you thought you smelled some good old pussy, and have brought your two small mincey faggot balls along for a good old time. But you’ve got your parties mangled up. There’s no pussy here, just a dose that’ll make you wish you were born a woman. Like a prick, you are having second thoughts. You are shrinking, and your two little balls are shrinking with ya. The fact that you’ve got “Replica” written down the side of your gun. (withdraws his gun) And the fact that I’ve got “Desert Eagle point five O” written on the side of mine, should precipitate your balls into shrinking, along with your presence. Now… Fuck off.
BobMac said: To place blame on the person whose gun is stolen is just another liberal way of diverting from the true crime which would be the burglary, possession of stolen property, etc. Making a victim out of the actor (as the bad guys are referred to in NJ criminal law) Life in prison without parole is the only means to knock down the gun violence. Nothing less, no parole.
Det. 1st (ret)
Another liberal way...please. Use of labels only compensates for a lack of ideas.
Life in prison without parole would not have prevented the school shootings. Are you saying that murder should always carry a sentence of life without parole? Or is this to be applied to a multitude of felonies?
I happen to think that drugs lead to most of the gun violence in this country. The sentencing guidelines won’t deter a banger from Baltimore from doing what they’re going to do. Do you think this is off-base?
You’re pretty much correct on the first situation. BUT (And a big one!) Deadly Force could be legally justifiable and defended in a Court of law.
The application of Deadly force doesn’t just apply to the immenent threat of death, it includes the immenent threat of great bodily harm as well.
True, deadly force could apply in scenarios of great bodily harm, but as I said the standard is generally “reasonable fear” and “reasonable force”. The term “reasonable” is a bit flexible, but not too flexible. A threat of getting punched out is not enough to shoot somebody. Being threatened to have your brains bashed in by a baseball bat wielding psychopath would definitely justify pulling a Dirty Harry.
The gray areas in between are left for the jury to decide.
I was simply pointing out that the right to own and/or carry a firearm is not the same thing as the right to use it in self-defense. That second right depends on the circumstances. I know, it’s a very nit-picking difference, but its a very real nit-picking difference.
The gray areas in between are left for the jury to decide.
And that reminds me of something my karate instruction told me the first time he taught me a technique that would actually end a life: “Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.”
Rehashing the obvious over and over in terms of this issue does nothing to improve the situation in terms of identifying gaps in our legislation that if addressed, could save lives.
Legislation has never, not once, saved a single life. It is the enforcement of legislation that has saved lives. There are already laws, in all states and at the federal level, regulating crime. Increased enforcement of those laws is what is needed. Not the creation of new ones.
securing their weapons
What exactly does “securing their weapons” mean? When I was growing up, my father had a loaded .38 and loaded shotgun under his bed. I knew that they were there. They did not have trigger locks, nor were they in locked cases. Do you consider that to be “insecure”?
If so, then you are completely wrong. From the time I could walk, I would sit in my father’s lap when he cleaned his guns. When I was old enough to hold them, he would allow me to dry fire them after cleaning. By the time I was 8, I was firing the .38 under his supervision. At 10 I had my first rifle and was allowed to use it under his are.
Pop taught me gun safety. He taught me the proper care and maintinence of guns as well as the deadly damage they could do. Because he took the time to teach me, he never had to fear that I would use those guns in an inappropriate way. That is the ONLY true way to secure a weapon.
We need gun safety taught in schools. This would ensure that all children grow up knowing the danger of guns as well as how to properly care for them. When they are old enough to choose to own a gun or not, they will have the education to make that choice.
BTW, my kids are homeschooled and, when I am home, receive the same gun education that I did.
Posted by ArchAngel on 04/11 at 10:22 AM
The UK has the strongest democratic traditions in Europe, and also the strictest gun control.
I noticed that you forgot to mention that the UK has one of the highest crime rates of the Western Europe countries you mentioned. You might have mentioned that the Crime Rate soared in the UK as soon as your gun control policies were enacted.
Not only “one of the highest crime rates”, but, specifically, criminals are four times as likely in Great Britain to break in to a home while the residents are there than they are in the US.
America is willing to accept large numbers of firearms deaths and other countries are willing to accept limitations in the individual’s ability to defend himself being pushed around by violent criminals at will.
Much better, and more accurate.
I propose that we continue along the idea of ‘personal responsibility’ and start requiring gun owners to secure their weapons or face consequences for not doing so.
Okay, future mom of two, what about a night-stand gun? You know, a pistol or shotgun kept with a loaded magazine, if not a loaded chamber, next to the user’s bedside? If people break into the house, you’ve not got a lot of time to grab a gun if you have to fiddle with keys in the dark. That defeats the whole pupose of using them for self-defense or defense of property, as they’re useless if not available as circumstances dictate.
Some parents have good kids, they teach them where the “house” gun” (the always-loaded and ready) is, not to ever use it or touch it, and they never have problems.
I personally think the fix for school shootings is armed teachers or guards. Having a one or two officer police presence helps a lot too. They can help avoid potential bloodbaths, or at least cut them short if not.
You know, perhaps we should assign a little more respect to the keeping and bearing of arms in this country. It’s enshrined in the damn constitution in plain language.
I’ve always shrugged these incidents off, freedom doesn’t mean risk-free secure living, freedom’s dangerous at times.
It’s so far away from our reality today that people forget that just a half century ago it happened, and in Africa it still happens.
And if you practice fire safety, an extinguisher might not be necessary, but shit happens, as the expression goes. Guns work in an analogous fashion. Except no one gets wierd looks for having a fire extinguisher.
Puppy...gun...same thing.
Puppies… *with*… guns… now that’s awesome.
They were written down as a non-exhaustive list simply because some States were leary that if they weren’t specifically mentioned the Federal Government might someday try to say the rights don’t, in fact, exist.
Hehe… “oops.” At least they let the AWB die.
Dead: Yes I said liberals. Look back at the last 12 years and look at what has happened to this country.
A person is arrested for murder and we have to go back and look at how many times his mom or dad yelled at him or her as being the cause of his going out and murdered someone.
You want ideas and by ideas are you are you using ideas to mean laws. We have so many laws in reference to firearms that no new ones are needed. I will go back to the fight about adding hate crimes laws. If a person is convicted of murder for killing someone what more are you going to do to the person by finding him/her guilty of a hate crime. You are not going to zap him/her more then once.
mbennett said:
‘Okay, future mom of two, what about a night-stand gun? You know, a pistol or shotgun kept with a loaded magazine, if not a loaded chamber, next to the user’s bedside? If people break into the house, you’ve not got a lot of time to grab a gun if you have to fiddle with keys in the dark. That defeats the whole pupose of using them for self-defense or defense of property, as they’re useless if not available as circumstances dictate.’
I don’t see how the law would infringe on someone’s ability to have a night-stand gun. Someone having such a weapon is not the problem. It’s when the owner is not around and that gun get’s swiped. How difficult is it to secure it before you leave the house?
The ‘future mom’ comment is typical of the mentality of this debate...that because I’m offering an idea that has anything to do with the topic, I’m a ‘girly-man’ or something. On the contrary, I was in the Army for four years, and our weapons were locked up in the arms room when we weren’t using them.
BobMac wrote:
Dead: Yes I said liberals. Look back at the last 12 years and look at what has happened to this country.
A person is arrested for murder and we have to go back and look at how many times his mom or dad yelled at him or her as being the cause of his going out and murdered someone.
Really? You think a murderer has any better chance of getting off now than they did twenty years ago? I’d contest that it’s the same as it ever was - meaning - if you can afford a top notch attourney and kept your mouth shut when they picked you up, you have a fighting chance. Otherwise, you’re just as likely of being convicted now than you would have back then.
The perception that things have changed so much in murder trials is hype. If there’s hard data proving otherwise, I haven’t seen it.
You want ideas and by ideas are you are you using ideas to mean laws. We have so many laws in reference to firearms that no new ones are needed. I will go back to the fight about adding hate crimes laws. If a person is convicted of murder for killing someone what more are you going to do to the person by finding him/her guilty of a hate crime. You are not going to zap him/her more then once.
No, but this country has a shamefull history when it comes to murder for nothing other than what race a person happened to be born as. This can’t be ignored, and in the case where a minority is killed for no other reason than for having been born black, Jewish or otherwise - a clear message must be sent to the community the perpetrator is from that in this country, such crimes will not only be prosecuted, but called what they are.
If you’re not going to engage in such activity, why would it matter to you that such a law is on the books? What’s so unagreeable about a hate crimes law?
Really? You think a murderer has any better chance of getting off now than they did twenty years ago?
Yup. The Ninth Circus set one free recently, overturning his conviction (for shooting a cop in the back, IIRC), because the victim’s family sat in the benches wearing small buttons with the victim’s picture on them.
Apparently, those buttons proved that he didn’t do it. Just the photo on them, even after the trial judge said there was no problem, and the Appeals Court agreed.
Now comes the Ninth Circus, and those shitbirds in black cut him loose.
If you’re not going to engage in such activity, why would it matter to you that such a law is on the books?
Isn’t it enough to punish him for the act, rather than what he might have been thinking when he did the deed? Isn’t that the best way to treat everyone equally?
Why should a black-on-black or white-on-white killer get sentenced to a lesser term than a white-on-black or a black-on-white crime? Why should the sentence increase for something that may not be true, but only a perception of public emotion?
Thoughtcrime, anyone?
mbennett:
I personally think the fix for school shootings is armed teachers or guards. Having a one or two officer police presence helps a lot too. They can help avoid potential bloodbaths, or at least cut them short if not.
So we’re going to add staff to the budgets of every school and arm teachers? This is a ridiculous idea.
A school shouldn’t be full of weapons, nor should it have to be. This is the NRA line I’m sure...spend more money on more guns and more taxpayer dollars to guard schools.
How about we expect parents to keep guns out of their kids’ hands? Seems to me like any idea that could help to prevent these acts that in any way inconveniences a single gun owner is simply shat upon and discarded without consideration.
We do not live in a police state, nor should we shirk personal responsibility and turn our country into one. Introducing weapons into schools is the wrong way to go. We got along just fine for hundreds of years without having to do something like this.
The acceptance of ideas that basically equal throwing our arms in the air and forking over more money is what I’d call a defeatest attitude, and the opposite of what this country is all about. If this problem didn’t have a batch of lobbyists attached to it, we’d be able to dislodge our heads from our asses and figure out a solution that didn’t include introducing more guns to the situation.
The ‘future mom’ comment is typical of the mentality of this debate
Would you quit acting so fucking offended all the time, jesus christ you fit the liberal stereotype so easily.
“Someone having such a weapon is not the problem.”
What if a burglar takes it silently, THEN kills someone? Is it his problem then?
Drumwaster:
Really? You think a murderer has any better chance of getting off now than they did twenty years ago?
Yup. The Ninth Circus set one free recently, overturning his conviction (for shooting a cop in the back, IIRC), because the victim’s family sat in the benches wearing small buttons with the victim’s picture on them.Apparently, those buttons proved that he didn’t do it. Just the photo on them, even after the trial judge said there was no problem, and the Appeals Court agreed.
Now comes the Ninth Circus, and those shitbirds in black cut him loose.
This is typical. I asked for hard data and was handed a single incident. I’m quite sure that there was evidence involved. If not, then post a link to the records of the trial. The justice system in capital cases is not more lenient today than it was twenty-forty-sixty years ago. One case and an assumption over why the outcome was acquittal is not proof that the entire system is lax.
Isn’t it enough to punish him for the act, rather than what he might have been thinking when he did the deed? Isn’t that the best way to treat everyone equally?
Why should a black-on-black or white-on-white killer get sentenced to a lesser term than a white-on-black or a black-on-white crime? Why should the sentence increase for something that may not be true, but only a perception of public emotion?
Thoughtcrime, anyone?
Oh, so now it’s the poor murderer? This is insane. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, so if they cannot prove it was a hate crime, than they can’t charge it. It’s not like the prosecutor can tell the jury that he ‘thinks’ the defendant killed the victim out of racial hatred.
This dialogue indicates a lack of understanding when it comes to our criminal justice system. The fact that the law was passed by a Democrat is what people have a problem with. Because if Bush decided to pass a law that set up a new clasification of criminal crimes, the talking heads and blogs would be hailing his praises the second it got signed. This is partisan crap.
Tell the grandson of a lynched black man whether or not the law is just. Lesson to the neo-nazis being...if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. There’s plenty of time to let your racism shine once you get inside...that’s where it’s srong and where it belongs!
If you’re not going to engage in such activity, why would it matter to you that such a law is on the books? What’s so unagreeable about a hate crimes law?
Well, let’s see…
1) There are already laws against murder. Adding the label “hate crime” does not enhance the charge or it’s punishment in any way.
2) Calling it a “hate crime” requires that the prosecution prove that the suspect actually hated the individual due to their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. instead of simply proving that they committed the crime. Proving commission of an act is (relatively) simple compared to proving that the act was inspired by hate.
3) Not all “hate crimes” are violent. Sexual harrassment is considered a hate crime in some states. But sexual harrassment is loosely defined as “an unwanted sexual advance”. If you ask someone you work with out on a date and they refuse, they could file sexual harrassment charges against you. Congratulations, you just committed a “hate crime”!
4) Labelling a crime a “hate crime” does not deter others from following committing the same crime. It can actually have the opposite effect since, as noted in #2 above, it is far more difficult to prove “hate” than it is simple commission.
Hate crime laws are a useless waste of paper, time, and taxpayer’s money.
mbennett:
Would you quit acting so fucking offended all the time, jesus christ you fit the liberal stereotype so easily.
Point taken...I’m not normaly this touchy, but being new to the site and all, it’s hard to know what people mean exactally. I’ve been called just about everything you could imagine for my beliefs on the net. I toggle from here to another right-wing site and get called a terrorist for questioning anything Rush Limbaugh happened to rant about on a given day.
I’ll lighten up.
Hate crime laws are a useless waste of paper, time, and taxpayer’s money.
Yea? Tell that to the family of a negro boy dragged to death by a pack of rednecks who get charged with manslaughter.
How about some documentation of a sexual harrasment case successfully prosecuted as a hate crime. How about some proof?
Introducing weapons into schools is the wrong way to go.
Really? I remember an armed officer present at my high school daily, sometimes more if they were doing random drug searches. I never remember a school shooting there.
I asked for hard data and was handed a single incident.
Well, damn, if I had known that a factual incident wouldn’t count as “hard data”, I would have just called you an illiterate fuck and otherwise ignored you. From now on, since simply reporting the facts are no longer enough, I think I’ll just resort to that right away.
You stupid jackass.
I’m quite sure that there was evidence involved.
You’d be quite wrong, too, but you’re probably used to that by now…
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, so if they cannot prove it was a hate crime, than they can’t charge it.
How would you suggest the prosecution “prove” what the criminal was thinking at the time the crime was committed? EEG? MRI? Miss Cleo?
Tell the grandson of a lynched black man
Show me how adding years to the punishment is going to solve racism? If you tried to tell this hypothetical grandson that his grandpa was murdered by a man who hated him, he would look at you like you were speaking Martian. Because that much was obvious - the grandpa was DEAD. Hate or anger was involved somewhere. It had to have been.
But for you to reach inside his head, and try and claim to “prove” that the hatred was based on race is to show an arrogance and presumption beyond your skills.
If you succeed, you have just criminalized private thoughts.
If you fail, what was the point?
We got along just fine for hundreds of years without having to do something like this.
Just as we have gotten along for hundreds of years without the useless legislation you are proposing.
If the parents of today actually did NOT keep guns out of their kid’s hands, but instead taught them to safely and responsibly use and care for them, it would not be an issue.
Oh, so now it’s the poor murderer? This is insane.
Where did Drum ever say that? You are the one who is acting insane. You fail to see that there is no difference between a simple murder and one motivated (supposedly) by hate.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, so if they cannot prove it was a hate crime, than they can’t charge it. It’s not like the prosecutor can tell the jury that he ‘thinks’ the defendant killed the victim out of racial hatred.
Wrong again. It’s done all the time. And the “proof” is typically innuendo and circumstance. There is rarely any “hard” evidence that a crime was motivated by hate. Juries simply infere it based on the difference between the accused and the victim.
The fact that the law was passed by a Democrat is what people have a problem with. Because if Bush decided to pass a law that set up a new clasification of criminal crimes, the talking heads and blogs would be hailing his praises the second it got signed. This is partisan crap.
Bull. I have a problem with the law period. Heck, I didn’t even know it was a Dem that passed it and wouldn’t have if you hadn’t said something about it. I’d have the same problem with it if Bush passed it. So would Drum and the vast majority of other people here.
I do find it telling, however, that you are the one bringing politics into the discussion rather than arguing the issue itself.
If you’re not going to engage in such activity, why would it matter to you that such a law is on the books?
Oh boy.
“If you’re not a pothead, why do you want it decriminalized?”
“Well, we keep eroding our privacy to make sure “kids don’t get em” and...”
“POTHEAD! POTHEAD!”
Usually our side gets accused of acting like that.
Yea? Tell that to the family of a negro boy dragged to death by a pack of rednecks who get charged with manslaughter.
The charge of manslaughter was wrong. It should have been murder. But labelling it a “hate crime” wouldn’t have resolved the issue of malfeasance by the prosecutor.
How about some proof?
How about you offer any proof that prosecuting “hate crimes” has, in any way, shape, or form, actually stopped racism? You are the one so big on proof. Cough it up.
I’m not the one tearing the law down. I’m for the law. It had to pass Congress and get signed into law by the president, so why should it be removed?
Why should I have to prove that it should be there? If I’m looking to enact a change, I’ve got to prove why that change is justified. If the law is on the books, you guys are the ones who need to make a case to remove it.
Waxing philosophical is nice for radio, but data usually helps in Congress. I’ve heard that it can be wrongly used...so when did it happen? Is there a ‘racism index’ I can reference to check on whether it’s down or up since the law passed? Isn’t that an abstract concept measured only by the amount of hate-crime convictions? Probably. Let’s assume that people have been convicted...where would I go from there?
Finding a wrongful conviction would be much easier...but I’m not arguing against the law...I’m for it.
If you’re not going to engage in such activity, why would it matter to you that such a law is on the books?
Oh boy.
“If you’re not a pothead, why do you want it decriminalized?”
“Well, we keep eroding our privacy to make sure “kids don’t get em” and...”
“POTHEAD! POTHEAD!”
Usually our side gets accused of acting like that.
I don’t see what the big deal is. I’m assuming that a minority family whose past has some needless lynchings in it’s past appreciates that our country has made this distinction.
What does it matter to you that it’s on the books? -cause it’s stupid- isn’t a reason, it’s nitpicking. If the law makes our system worse, I can’t imagine how.
I’m getting philosophy in response here, yet no hard data on how this law makes America worse in some way.
Oh I get it now. You have no proof that the law is a good thing or even remotely useful. You just “feel” it is. I would say that you “think” it is, but without proof, you can have no logical basis for thinking such.
Laws should be subject to periodic review and, if deemed useless, discarded from the books.
Drum, I gotta get rollin’. Have fun with this guy.
Before I go....
I’m getting philosophy in response here, yet no hard data on how this law makes America worse in some way.
Cost is one simple reason. It costs over $50,000 per year (at the state level) to keep a law on the books. Federal costs are even higher. That cost is born by the taxpayers year after year. When a law is useless, that cost is a needless burden on our resources.
There is not one single logical reason for labeling a crime a hate crime. Not one.
There is not one single logical reason for labeling a crime a hate crime. Not one.
I guess there’s not a single logical reason for native americans to own casinos either then, right?
George Wallace...a hate crime law is the least we can do to make up for all that enslaving and lynching and segregation...or did that never take place?
I guess there’s not a single logical reason for native americans to own casinos either then, right?
Damn skippy!
a hate crime law is the least we can do to make up for all that enslaving and lynching and segregation...or did that never take place?
Why? Isn’t ‘life in prison’ enough of a punishment for murder? (Or are you actually in favor of the death penalty?)
And why should we punish what people THINK? Give me one reason why punishing “thoughtcrime” is suddenly a good thing?
I guess there’s not a single logical reason for native americans to own casinos either then, right?
Right.
George Wallace...a hate crime law is the least we can do to make up for all that enslaving and lynching and segregation...or did that never take place?
We should punish someone for what they think as well as what they did? You’re just as dead whether or not there was any racial animus involved in the murder or not.
And a historical justification for hate crimes legislation is idiotic.
’Thought’ is a generality, whereas ‘hatred’ is a specific type of thought, and one that our society does not have any place for.
On the death penalty...I know I don’t want to be the one pushing in the juice, but besides that...having not been involved with someone taking a loved one away from me...I haven’t been in that person’s shoes, so I can’t say whether I’d change my mind if something like that happened...so I stay away from that one.
I’ll admit that I’m not 100% on all my opinions concerning politics, but at the same time, I don’t really think it should be a prerequisite to be one side or the other on everything. Not that you or anyone else would insinuate that I should be...just explaining why I don’t have a firm opinion on the subject…
Kind of like with abortion...I figure it’s none of my business for the same reason as I’m undecided on the death penalty.
I disagree with you that reperations need not be made to people we affected adversely in the past. Neither you or I had to survive a slave ship journey across the Atlantic and a life of hell afterwards...nor did we have to endure genocide (indians)...and these people are part of our society. Exhibiting a token of regret is alright with me. Racists had their day…
Neither you or I had to survive a slave ship journey across the Atlantic and a life of hell afterwards...nor did we have to endure genocide (indians)...and these people are part of our society.
Show me a single living person that endured that. Oh, that’s right. It was generations ago, and society has progressed.
Once one group gets reparations, everyone will want them, and the only people who it will matter to are the friggin’ lawyers.
‘Thought’ is a generality, whereas ‘hatred’ is a specific type of thought, and one that our society does not have any place for.
You are still punishing people for what YOU THINK they MIGHT have been thinking.
What if they weren’t actually thinking that? What if what you think is a “race-based” crime is actually just an old gambling debt collection effort gone wrong?
“WTF, he lookslike he could have been thinking that, and that’s good enough for me!”
Whatever happened to “innocent until PROVEN guilty”? How are you going to prove what someone might have been thinking?
Neither you or I had to survive a slave ship journey across the Atlantic and a life of hell afterwards
Neither did anyone alive today, nor their parents, nor their grand-parents, however I might accept great-grandparents for the very oldest blacks living today.
Show me a single living person who was a slave here in America, and I’ll tap the pot. But until you do, you are punishing people today for something that happened almost a century and a half ago. And something we gave 600,000 men to put a stop to. (How much are those lives worth?)
‘Thought’ is a generality, whereas ‘hatred’ is a specific type of thought
Semantically, this boils down to nothing at all.
1) Thought = Generality
2) hatred = Specific type of thought
3) hatred = specific type of generality
A specific generality? That’s an oxymoron. Like “Liberal intelligence”.
Neither you or I had to survive a slave ship journey across the Atlantic and a life of hell afterwards.
If you want to give up *your* wealth to satisfy *your* white guilt, go for it, it’s a free country. But I’m not giving one red cent, and anyone that wants that from me can have it after they step over my fresh, bleeding corpse.
I never owned a slave and neither did my family.
‘Thought’ is a generality, whereas ‘hatred’ is a specific type of thought, and one that our society does not have any place for.
So we must punish someone for what they might be thinking during the commission of a crime. Drum already this question, but since he and I sometimes share the same brain I’ll ask it as well; just how do you tell what someone might be thinking?
Neither you or I had to survive a slave ship journey across the Atlantic and a life of hell afterwards...
And neither did anyone else alive today. Like I said eariler, a historical justification for hate crimes legislation is idiotic.
Exhibiting a token of regret is alright with me.
Then you go right ahead with your exhibition if it makes you feel all warm and special inside. As for myself, I’ll take a pass on punishing thought.
A hate crime is a hate crime no matter what the motivation. And who is allowed to decide what is a hate crime. Is it worse that I killed a black man rather than a vegan? What about if a black man kills me because he hates me? What about if I kill him because he’s black and he beat up my daughter. Where does the motivation become fuelled by racism? How can you tell?
A word about people using the UK to compare to. I’m not going to use hard facts because 1) We’re comparing different methods of counting and categorizing and 2) They don’t support my argument (joke). It also ties in with the question Lee asked (and one of JimKs favourites) about the reason for having smoke detectors in my house.
I don’t feel under threat from intruders into my house. It’s not that I leave my door open like they all do in canada, but as I stated in another post - I have never actually seen a gun in the UK. I have had things stolen, but I don’t feel under threat by someone who wants to break into my house and kill me. Now I have a gas oven, and an open fire and one of my housemates smoke, so I can see a situation where my house might catch fire in the middle of the night.
As the literate liberal aussie stated, its about weighing things up. I think that a fire is more likely than being attacked by thugs in my own home.
Just like it pisses you guys off when europeans point at columbine and blame the NRA, it pisses us off when you point at an aggravated burlary and shout “I bet they wished they had guns!”
And neither did anyone else alive today. Like I said eariler, a historical justification for hate crimes legislation is idiotic.
You’re being extremely naive towards what happened in the 60s and afterwards in this country. Racial hatred still results in deaths, and the prosecution of these crimes in Alabama is still ongoing.
I know the right-wingers generally want to ignore all of this, but convenience doesn’t equal good sence. And you’re not punnishing someone for THINKING - this concept is all over this thread, but it’s wrong - you’re punnishing someone for killing someone else, not for their money or because they were high on drugs or anything like that, but because they were born to a certain race that you have been brought up to hate...there are clear instances where the law applies. And racism is a part of our history as well as part of our daily lives here in America today.
Racial hatred still results in deaths, and the prosecution of these crimes in Alabama is still ongoing.
Yup, as the crimes that they are, not what you think the criminal might have been thinking at the time.
An example: one defense is NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity/Mental Defect). The theory is that one cannot be convicted of a crime, if they can be shown to have been incapable of forming the requisite intent. The defense has to show that at the moment the crime was committed the defendent was incapable of distinguishing actions and consequences, right and wrong. It’s allowed for one simple reason. The defendent may have been sane five seconds before the crime and sane again five seconds later, but may have been overtaken by uncontrollable emotions and reactions for those few seconds.
Apply that logic to you argument. The defendent may have been one of Robert Byrd’s cronies, and have hated the victim five seconds before and five seconds after, yet at the time the crime was committed, may not have had any racist thoughts whatsoever.
Unless and until you can provide a way to prove BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT what someone was thinking at any given second in time, the legal presumption is that he wasn’t. “Innocent until proven guilty”, and all that.
You are advocating that because someone a few hundred miles away may have chosen a victim of a different skin color thirty years ago, that today’s criminal should be punished more harshly.
You’d better hope that the next time you get a traffic ticket, the judge doesn’t decide to throw you in the slammer rather than just a fine, all because his childhood puppy was hit by a car.
You’ll say, “That would never happen.” I’m telling you that’s what “hate crime” legislation is all about. The traffic court judge may have thought you were hating dogs while you were speeding, because he is certain that the driver who killed his dog did.
You’re being extremely naive towards what happened in the 60s and afterwards in this country. Racial hatred still results in deaths, and the prosecution of these crimes in Alabama is still ongoing.
Wait, wait, wait. How many examples of slave ships or genocide committed against indians can you find in the 20th or 21st centuries? You want *everyone* to finance the stupidity of some people who *are* being prosecuted for their actions?
I know the right-wingers generally want to ignore all of this, but convenience doesn’t equal good sence.
Who’s ignoring the atrocities committed against indians and blacks decades ago? If anything, you’re ignoring atrocities committed by indians against settlers. I mean, whites should get reperations from indians, if we want to be fair.
you’re punnishing someone for killing someone else
I was under the impression that murder was already illegal. Or is a white man murdering a black man more illegal than a black man murdering a white man?
because they were born to a certain race that you have been brought up to hate
Just because you were raised that way doesn’t mean everyone else was. I know I was taught to respect everyone, unless they did something to warrant otherwise.
there are clear instances where the law applies.
So, if a black person murders a white person, does this qualify as a hate crime? It *MUST* have been motivated by race, right?
And racism is a part of our history as well as part of our daily lives here in America today.
Please, show me one instance where someone here DENIES that there were ever racial problems in America.
‘Thought’ is a generality, whereas ‘hatred’ is a specific type of thought
Semantically, this boils down to nothing at all.1) Thought = Generality
2) hatred = Specific type of thought
3) hatred = specific type of generalityA specific generality? That’s an oxymoron. Like “Liberal intelligence”.
Really? A thought can equal love, hate, satisfaction, inquiry, frustration, lust, hunger, etc.
We have crimes of passion, crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, crimes sparked by greed, crimes committed out of hatred of a race or group of people.
I get it...you think it’s stupid, but I’d bet the folks who think it’s stupid here are white and haven’t had to deal with it themselves. I could be wrong, but perception is 100% of the game, and the inability to put yourself in someone’s shoes is one of the worst problems we have in the political arena of this country.
We’re inconvenienced by having to think about the fact that racial hatred is a part of our country...we’d like to ignore it and sweep it under the carpet like we do other incoveniences like gang violence, unprotected sex and the environment...but just becasuse we can type up a nonsence analogy or play jailhouse-philosopher on a topic amongst people who are mostly inclined to buy into said position of convenience, doesn’t make it right.
It seems that the dynamic of having a group of like-minded individuals together all at once creates a void in terms of reality and the difference between how a black person living in Mississippi might perceive things in comparison to how one of you might see things is clear as day here.
This seperation is orchestrated by the talking heads and politicatos-extrodinaire telling us what’s right and wrong...and most likely when the hate crimes law was passed, there were a few mental hate crimes taking place over the radio that week, but the argument is false if you’re breaking it down like you did above drumwaster.
And the ‘liberal intelligence’ thing is just a defense mechanism. All right-wingers do this when they feel threatened. When the ideas and arguments are not good enough, it’s time to bust out the one-liners and insults. I don’t take offense, but would like to point out that at some point there has to be a logical argument amongst this group here that can bridge the gap and explain why the law is bullshit.
Saying, ‘you can’t punnish thought’ is a step, but I’ve pointed out that thoughts lead to crimes and hatred can be classified seperately from other thoughts. What’s next then? Because we’re punnishing the action, and the action is a hate crime based on the fact that it wasn’t motivated by a personal relationship, but rather it was motivated by a generational sickness of mankind known as racism. It exists...just like drugs exist, just like greed exists, and new laws are drawn up from time to time to deal with these things as well.
If a new set of drug laws went on the books, who here would be complaining? The right-wing talking heads wouldn’t be - but mention the fact that racism took place and it’s suddenly a touchy subject, and the ‘cost’ of having a law on the books is the ‘real issue here’...bullshit.
A thought can equal love, hate, satisfaction, inquiry, frustration, lust, hunger, etc.
But you are punishing someone for a thought you cannot prove ever existed. How do you get around that barrier?
So simplify this argument, let me point out that an assault...one person beats another over a dispute involving a debt owed or transaction gone bad or because the were ‘eyeing my old-lady’ is something completely different than a group of white supremecists beating a black man for being black.
The basis for this disctinction lies in the fact that there are people in this country who harbor hatred towards other races. I can bet that George Wallace and Strom Thurman would be against hate crimes, but what’s the motiviation for being against such a thing? Perhaps the fact that their constituencies contain individuals and groups who continue to hate people based on their race and nothing more. If such people exist within our society, isn’t that something legislation should work to prevent from existing in future generations? I think so. I also think that leaving such matters up to communities has proven to be an ineffective deterant over the years.
This legislation applies mostly to folks who live in red states, and that’s really why there’s so much opposition to it in this group.
This legislation applies mostly to folks who live in red states, and that’s really why there’s so much opposition to it in this group.
You’re full of shit. (No big surprise.)
Because we all know how there are no racists among the Democrats.
Robert “Grand Kleagle” Byrd
Hillary “Ghandi would have been pumpin’ gas” Clinton
Cruz “Por La Raza, Todo” BustaMEChA
Je$$e “Hymietown” Jack$on
Al “Tawana Brawley” $harpton
Cynthia “Blame it all on the JOOOOOS” McKinney
Shall I go on?
So simplify this argument, let me point out that an assault...one person beats another over a dispute involving a debt owed or transaction gone bad or because the were ‘eyeing my old-lady’ is something completely different than a group of white supremecists beating a black man for being black.
Yeah, one of them involves one person and the other person involves a group assault.
Tell me, DI, if I hit a black guy in the head with a claw hammer because he is black, and a black guy hits me in the head with a claw hammer because he wants to steal my Nikes, what is the substantive difference in these crimes? Why should I receive a higher sentence for doing exactly the same thing?
You’re full of shit. (No big surprise.)
Because we all know how there are no racists among the Democrats.
Robert “Grand Kleagle” Byrd
Hillary “Ghandi would have been pumpin’ gas” Clinton
Cruz “Por La Raza, Todo” BustaMEChA
Je$$e “Hymietown” Jack$on
Al “Tawana Brawley” $harpton
Cynthia “Blame it all on the JOOOOOS” McKinneyShall I go on?
Are Democrats opposing the legislation? Not that I know of. My understanding is that the posters here are predominately right-wingers.
A thought can equal love, hate, satisfaction, inquiry, frustration, lust, hunger, etc.
But you are punishing someone for a thought you cannot prove ever existed. How do you get around that barrier?
Obviously it can be proved with character witnesses and those who witnessed the actual crime take place. The victim can testify to what the accused said to them during the attack.
It can definitely be proven. If the accused is a neo-nazi and several individuals who know the accused testify to the person’s hatred of non-arian persons, then a witness testifies that the accused walked up to the victim hollaring ‘c’mere nigger! we don’t want you niggers around here no more’…
Proving it isn’t impossible at all. We’re talking about motive, and that has to be established in almost all criminal cases. The prosecution achieves this through the testimony of character witnesses and people who were there. No?
Lee said:
Tell me, DI, if I hit a black guy in the head with a claw hammer because he is black, and a black guy hits me in the head with a claw hammer because he wants to steal my Nikes, what is the substantive difference in these crimes? Why should I receive a higher sentence for doing exactly the same thing?
Clasification of an assault as a ‘hate crime’ is a matter of proving that your motive was to attack the individual because they were black. In the above example, you hit him because he was black, but the prosecution would have to prove that you had a predetermined hatred of blacks. If there are no character witnesses to testify to that, or there was noone there who could testify that your motive was based on racial hatred - the charge will get thrown out.
A judge isn’t going to allow the prosecution to try you under the hate crime statute if it cannot be proved that your motive was entirely based on hatred of the victim’s race.
The criminal justice system requires a satisfying of criteria in order to charge someone. If you get caught with a gram of pot, the prosecutor cannot turn around and charge you with distribution. They have to justify the charge in order for it to be accepted in a court. If this isn’t done, an appeal will overturn the sentence.
So if you were charged with a hate crime and convicted in this instance, without any testimony taking place that proved you were a racist and the crime was provoked by that racism - the case will be overturned upon appeal. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the judge ensures that the case is legitimate, or else it will be overturned. There are controls in place to prevent the misuse of this law.
Posted by Lee on 04/12 at 10:36 AM
if I hit a black guy in the head with a claw hammer because he is black, and a black guy hits me in the head with a claw hammer because he wants to steal my Nikes, what is the substantive difference in these crimes? Why should I receive a higher sentence for doing exactly the same thing?
craig.f had some interesting comments about hate crimes right here on RTLC.com a while back: HERE
You misunderstood the question. In a country where everyone is supposed to be equal, why should I get a stronger sentence for committing exactly the same crime. In both instances we have one human driving a hammer into the skull of another human. The net result of both cases is one severely injured human lying unconscious in a pool of his own blood. But I should get a longer sentence because of the motivation for the crime? My life is worth less than the black guy, I guess, huh?
I guess Orwell was right. Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.
We’re talking about motive, and that has to be established in almost all criminal cases.
Not true. No one cares why the criminal robbed the bank.
The only time motive even comes up is “why on earth would my client have possibly done that?” The prosecution can offer a legitimate/plausible theory, which can change as the case progresses. But as long as it explains all the relevant facts, the jury doesn’t care if it’s true, because they aren’t looking at the “why”, just whether the defendenyt committed the crime.
For example, does it really matter why Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn son? Of course not. So why would you give him a harsher punishment (as if you could) for doing so for what you consider to be an offensive reason?
You sound like you’re trying to breed hatred out through legislation, too. Maybe you need to figure out why you’re so filled with hatred.
And as offensive as the words you alleged could have been spoken, doesn’t the First Amendment give him that right? Or does “free speech” only mean “words and ideas I approve of”?
The way to defeat hateful speech is with more speech, not by legislating morality.
For example, does it really matter why Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn son? Of course not. So why would you give him a harsher punishment (as if you could) for doing so for what you consider to be an offensive reason?
If his wife had been black, should he have gotten a harsher sentence for killing her? Maybe they could execute him 1 1/2 times?
As long as we keep making special concessions for people based on race, we will have racism. It’s time to move past that.
That’s all I got to say.
You misunderstood the question. In a country where everyone is supposed to be equal, why should I get a stronger sentence for committing exactly the same crime. In both instances we have one human driving a hammer into the skull of another human. The net result of both cases is one severely injured human lying unconscious in a pool of his own blood. But I should get a longer sentence because of the motivation for the crime? My life is worth less than the black guy, I guess, huh?
I guess Orwell was right. Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.
Now that’s a great point - but if you initiated the attack in this scenario and the black man was acting in self defense, the fault lies on your side.
If you’re talking about seperate incidents, it’s a matter of whether the prosecution can determine whether the motive was racial hatred or not.
It’s not a matter of one person being worth more than another, but that in our society the motive of racial hatred is to be considered worse than other motives. Our history dictates this being the way it is. If the KKK never lynched a black man, and if whites still didn’t tie blacks to pickup trucks and drag them to their death, the classification wouldn’t be necessary.
We create laws that treat terrorists differently than other criminals, so why not treat crimes perpetrated because of racism differently? In both instances the law targets a group within our society that the majority of Americans are against existing in the first place. Are you against trying terrorists to a seperate set of laws as well?
If his wife had been black, should he have gotten a harsher sentence for killing her? Maybe they could execute him 1 1/2 times?
There’s a disconnect in your understanding of the law. An assault on a black by a white is not automatically a ‘hate crime’...racial hatred has to be proven to be the motive. So if I kill a black man but the prosecution can’t prove that I did it based on racial hatred, they can’t prosecute me for a ‘hate crime’.
It’s not as simple and automatic as the scenarios being presented here. Motive is a crucial element in criminal prosecution, and it’s being overlooked here in terms of the need for prosecutors to PROVE that it existed. Proving it is absolutely possible.
Just like proving the motive for a wife killing her husband was that he was cheating on her. They bring up the mistress and she testifies that she was sleeping with the accused’s husband. Then the prosecution has to prove that the wife had known or found out, and therefore a motive was established for her killing her husband. It’s a fundamental element in criminal trials. The hate crime law doesn’t wipe out the concept of motive, it merely allows for racial hatred as a motive to be treated differently than others.
If the KKK never lynched a black man, and if whites still didn’t tie blacks to pickup trucks and drag them to their death, the classification wouldn’t be necessary.
When was the last time that happened??? It must’ve been during finals week, because the MSM and Jesse Jackson would have been ALL OVER THAT.
All you do is bring up these ultra-specific hypotheticals and call it proof. We already have murder/assault laws on the books. If one crime is more heinous than the other, its the judge’s duty to penalize one more than the other. However, all you want to do is drag us down a slippery slope towards 1984 or Minority Report.
There’s a disconnect in your understanding of the law. An assault on a black by a white is not automatically a ‘hate crime’...racial hatred has to be proven to be the motive. So if I kill a black man but the prosecution can’t prove that I did it based on racial hatred, they can’t prosecute me for a ‘hate crime’.
But, again, you’re missing the point. Regardless of the motivation, Laci and her baby would be just as dead. But if the motivation were racial, then her murder would be more wrong in your eyes, justifying a harsher sentence. As I said, I guess some people are more equal than others.
Speaking of Orwell, you might want to see what Orwell wrote about Thoughtcrime: “Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself.”
Sound very similar to hate crimes legislation, doesn’t it? The crime itself is the thought, the manifestation of that thought is secondary and largely inconsequential.
DI, a question for you. Say a guy robs a bank. He walks in, sticks a gun in the teller’s face and demands cash. There are four tellers in this bank, one of whom is black. If he chose the black teller over one of the white tellers because he doesn’t like black people, should he be sentenced to a longer prison sentence because he chose the black teller out of racial animus?
Posted by Lee on 04/12 at 11:46 AM
Say a guy robs a bank. [...]If he chose the black teller over one of the white tellers because he doesn’t like black people, should he be sentenced to a longer prison sentence because he chose the black teller out of racial animus?
Here’s another question: what if the guy only robbed “black” banks (banks in predominantly black neighborhoods, with predominantly black clientele and employees)?
Just like proving the motive for a wife killing her husband was that he was cheating on her. They bring up the mistress and she testifies that she was sleeping with the accused’s husband. Then the prosecution has to prove that the wife had known or found out, and therefore a motive was established for her killing her husband.
But she may have decided to kill him for the insurance money, rather than because of the affair. Just because a motive is plausible doesn’t make it true. The jury just needs to accept that a plausible reason exists, not that this has to be the reason.
In your situation, it is the mere accusation that carries the conviction, because (as I continued to repeat - and will KEEP repeating until it sinks through that solid rock twixt your ears) you cannot KNOW what he was thinking. You abolutely cannot prove what he was thinking at the time of the crime. The best you can do is show a likelihood.
You might as well ask the jury to decide by picking a card. “If it’s red or a face, he was thinking racist thoughts, if it’s anything else, he was thinking about the last time he got laid.”
That about it?
Pure Bullshit.
Here’s another question: what if the guy only robbed “black” banks (banks in predominantly black neighborhoods, with predominantly black clientele and employees)?
What about if a guy mistakenly kills someone they think is black but they turn out to be a white guy with a dark tan?
How about if someone killed Michael Jackson out of racist intent, should that qualify as a hate crime, even though physically he looks like a middle-aged white woman?
I think hate crimes legislation is counterproductive to the goal. Eventually, people will resent the constant protecting of certain classes and direct their anger toward the people the laws are supposed to protect. It’s already brewing.
Bonus Question: What if a guy robs a white bank filled with white people, but while taking off with the bags of money says “oh yeah, did I mention that I hate niggers?”
What if a black, blind, white-supremacist kills a black person? What if that same white supremacist believes he’s killing a black person, but the victim turns out to be white?
How about if someone killed Michael Jackson out of racist intent, should that qualify as a hate crime, even though physically he looks like a middle-aged white woman?
Hee hee! What if a black guy killed him because he was white? Would that qualify?
What if a latino kills himself because he hates his ethnicity?
AP just released a story about Wisconson gun owners being allowed to hunt and kill ferral cats. As Wisconson goes, so goes the nation. Let me know if you need a scope for your pistol or rifle. Never forget, that if a cat could aim and pull the trigger, they would blow you away any chance they got.
Posted by GripeBoy on 04/12 at 12:02 PM
I think hate crimes legislation is counterproductive to the goal. Eventually, people will resent the constant protecting of certain classes and direct their anger toward the people the laws are supposed to protect. It’s already brewing.
If a group of blacks get together and lynch a white man, they can be charged with the crime as well. It’s not a ‘hate crimes against blacks’ law...it protects all of us, so how are we protecting certain classes here. What class is done wrong by this law?
As for your last point...that’s bullshit. If there’s a movement aimed at engaging in domestic terrorism, they’ll be squashed and made an example of...it will be broadcast over the TV, airwaves and discussed everywhere. There is no way such a movement would obtain any kind of a foothold, and the politicians who made statements that may have inspired your point of view there will be villified and voted out.
I’m quite sure that the south isn’t going to break away from the rest of the country any time soon.
If a group of blacks get together and lynch a white man, they can be charged with the crime as well. It’s not a ‘hate crimes against blacks’ law...it protects all of us, so how are we protecting certain classes here. What class is done wrong by this law?
Why not charge them with murder and put them away? Why do YOU feel the need to legislate other people’s THOUGHTS?
DI,
You’re right. The law doesn’t distinguish. But, my point is more about perceptions. Are you telling me that people don’t perceive hate crimes legislation as directed toward certain groups who are frequently victims of crimes because of who they are?
I think a lot of people lump these laws in with things like affirmative action, whether or not they apply to all people.
There was a recent incident involving a black OSU football player who assaulted a white National Guardsman and his black wife. It’s widely believed that the interracial relationship motivated the assualt. I admit I can’t say for sure.
I think the reality is that black on white crime is less likely to be categorized as a hate crime.
I abhor racism in every form. I am simply not a proponent of laws that differentiate crime based on motivations. You should only legislate against actions, not thoughts or emotions.
Kevin said: And a historical justification for hate crimes legislation is idiotic.
By historical, are you also including the black kid who was dragged by a rope attached to the back of a pickup truck for the horrible transgression of being black and in the same area as some racist whites? This happened in recent memory. Don’t pretend that it’s all stoped. Until it is, the government has a duty to work to make sure it is. To simply say ‘Oh well, I guess the Aryians (sp?) are always going to kill blacks, can’t shine a spotlight on that...got to consider the rights of the skinheads. It’s been a religion and hobby of their’s for years now, we can’t infringe on their good time’...it’s ridiculous.
What’s even more ridiculous is arguing that the law results in an unfair playing field for the skinhead. Because that’s who your sticking up for when you argue against this, the rights of a skinhead who gets drunk and bored...so they say to themselves, ‘why don’t I go killer a nigger? that’d be fun’. Why? Because their pop and granddad did and all their friends are into it, it’s their personality clique. A ridiculous line of bullshit about God and purity, which is really all about having had to listen to Washington DC after the Civil War was over.
The law was written, because even after the civil right’s movement...and even after a considerable fraction of them have found themselves in prison, the idea is still out there that it’s a viable way to live.
If they’re not terrorists, I don’t know who is. I don’t see a distinction between a Sunni insurgant killing Shite strangers for being Shites and a neo-nazi killing a black or a Jew for being who they are. That’s the idea with our intervention in the middle east right? Putting a stop to shit like this abroad, and leading people towards creating a society like ours where everyone is protected under the law. Yet you guys are against doing it in our very own country???
The lame argument about legislating thoughts is the champion reason from what I see here. And the first person who gets locked up for thinking about something, will be a big story. Hate crime laws aren’t about someone thinking. They’re about someone acting out on those thoughts. Think all you want...all of you, about the most horrible, depraved shit you can come up with...do it all you want, and just wait for the feds to bust down your door.
Does Stephen King get locked up because his mind is filled with thoughts of murder and terror on a daily basis? If you conspire to kill someone is it punished in the same way as conspiring to blow up a federal building? By the ‘punishing thoughts’ argument that’s been proposed here, the idea that a conspiracy to blow up the building couldn’t be classified with an preventive distinction, is basically to say that referring to terrorist criminals as such would be wrong. It was the thought of blowing up the building that achieves the distinction of terrorist, same as it is the thought of hating someone for their race as the distinction of classifying a hate crime. The very same idea, yet one is called wrong and the other we stand behind.
This law goes directly to what makes America great.
There was a recent incident involving a black OSU football player who assaulted a white National Guardsman and his black wife. It’s widely believed that the interracial relationship motivated the assualt. I admit I can’t say for sure.
I think the reality is that black on white crime is less likely to be categorized as a hate crime.
Any American citizen should be allowed to marry another American citizen...that’s the national standard, so the negro who beats this white man should in deed be charged with a hate crime. If this happened and the law wasn’t applied, it would be a miscariage of justice in my opinion.
I he was attack by a raging liberal because he is a National Guardsman, would that be a hate crime?
By historical, are you also including the black kid who was dragged by a rope attached to the back of a pickup truck for the horrible transgression of being black and in the same area as some racist whites? This happened in recent memory. Don’t pretend that it’s all stoped.
There was a case a couple of years back fo a white man dragged to death behind a car full of blacks. I bet that isn’t in your recent memory, is it? Because it got virtually no play in the media. Because, as any good liberal can tell you, only white people can be racist. And hate crimes legislation is never applied to anyone who is non-white, no matter how heinous or racially motivated the crime.
It was the thought of blowing up the building that achieves the distinction of terrorist…
Say the Port Authority decided to blow up wth WTC for the insurance money, and they hijacked two planes full of people and flew them into the buildings. Would the fact that they did it out of greed make it any less worse than the Islamists who did it out of hatred?
This law goes directly to what makes America great.
Thoughtcrime is what makes America great?
so the negro who beats this white man should in deed be charged with a hate crime. If this happened and the law wasn’t applied, it would be a miscariage of justice in my opinion.
but he didn’t make any racial remarks, that is why it didn’t qualify as a hate crime.
Benton County grand jury decided not to charge Rudulph with intimidation, Oregon’s equivalent of a hate crime, because it found that Rudulph did not make any racial remarks during the incident,
There was a case a couple of years back fo a white man dragged to death behind a car full of blacks. I bet that isn’t in your recent memory, is it? Because it got virtually no play in the media. Because, as any good liberal can tell you, only white people can be racist. And hate crimes legislation is never applied to anyone who is non-white, no matter how heinous or racially motivated the crime.
Can you post a link to this? If what you say is true, then I’ll write a letter to the legislature. I don’t remember this story.
Rudulph did not make any racial remarks during the incident
But someone he was with did. You think just because he kept his trap shut this wasn’t motivated by race?
Another reason these laws are screwy.
Actually I had it wrong. It was a black victim dragged to death by a group of black perpetrators. Here’s a link.
Now, I’d like to know by what justification you could go to the mother of this dragging victim and tell her that her son’s killers deserve less time in prison because they were black than they would if they were white. Because that is EXACTLY what hate crimes legislation states, that black victims are worth more than identical white victims, and that that white perpetrators deserve more harsh punishments than identical black perps.
Thoughtcrime, it’s a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
So are all you guys against sentencing terrorists differently as well?
So are all you guys against sentencing terrorists differently as well?
Could you be more specific please?
DI, I asked you a pretty specific question, do you have an answer?
By what justification could you go to the mother of a black dragging victim and tell her that her son’s killers deserve less time in prison because they were black than they would if they were white?
You mean “would we treat someone who methodically plots to carry out a mass murder differently than we would someone who only killed in the heat of the moment?”
Again, it’s the act, not the motive behind it.
Try actually thinking for once. This is a surprisingly simple issue.
You want to punish people who are thinking certain thoughts that you find offensive. We don’t. You consider yourself somehow morally superior and think that you can prove what people are thinking at any given moment in time.
What happens when the Republicans start passing laws that say that any thoughts against the Republicans automatically carried a year in jail? (After all, I’m sure they find your anti-Bush thoughts fairly offensive.) Sound fair? If not, why not? After all, that would mean that hating rich white men is somehow okay, while hating a rich black man is not.
There’s no such thing as “reverse racism”, you moron…
I think that DI is just another pie-in-the-sky liberal that thinks, if they just wish hard enough, people will stop hating. Sadly enough, it doesn’t work that way. So until someone, or something, comes along that can reliably read minds, hate crime legislation is just so much useless liberal pablum.
Is egging Bush’s inaugural motorcade a hate crime? The people who did it hate Bush and were motivated to commit vandalism by that hatred.
Sounds like one by the current standard.
You’re being extremely naive towards what happened in the 60s and afterwards in this country.
Am I? Or are you being naive because you believe what happened 40 some odd years ago somehow justifies punishing someone for what they may have thought when they commit a crime in the present?
Racial hatred still results in deaths, and the prosecution of these crimes in Alabama is still ongoing.
So, where’s the problem?
I know the right-wingers generally want to ignore all of this, but convenience doesn’t equal good sence.
And punishing someone for what they may have been thinking somehow equates to good sense?
And you’re not punnishing someone for THINKING - this concept is all over this thread, but it’s wrong - you’re punnishing someone for killing someone else..
Then why do we need hate crime laws? Laws against homicide have been on the books in this country since before it was even a country. Hate crimes laws are a fairly recent phenonmenon.
not for their money or because they were high on drugs or anything like that, but because they were born to a certain race that you have been brought up to hate...there are clear instances where the law applies.
And do you know for a fact that when a white man kills a black man (just for an example) hate automatically factored into the equation, without knowing what that white man might have been thinking?
And racism is a part of our history...
I say again, historical justification for hate crimes legislation is idiotic.
as well as part of our daily lives here in America today
Nice strawman, no one is arguing that point. What we are arguing is that you cannot punish someone for a hate crime without knowing what that person might have been thinking at the time they committed the offense in question.
What we are arguing is that you cannot punish someone for a hate crime without knowing what that person might have been thinking at the time they committed the offense in question.
I’m actually arguing something a little different, that the motivation for the crime is totally immaterial to the case. If a white guy kills a black guy it doesn’t matter whether he did so because he wanted to steal his car, or because the black guy was fucking his girlfriend, or because he thinks the black guy is a dirty nigger. The crime is still murder, and in a society where all men are supposed to be created equal, the only fair thing to do is treat everyone as such.
By historical, are you also including the black kid who was dragged by a rope attached to the back of a pickup truck for the horrible transgression of being black and in the same area as some racist whites?
No, you used the instances of slavery and the Jim Crow era to say they are the reasons why we need hate crimes legislation today and that is what I was addressing. Nice way to change the subject.
And in the Richard Byrd case (which is the one I am guessing you were referring to), didn’t most of the prepetrators get the death penalty and the other one get hit with a life sentence?
But to follow up on your example, what about the black kid dragged to death by another group of black kids—to use Lee’s example—is that black kid any less dead because he was killed by blacks and not whites? Do those black kids deserved to be charged with a hate crime simply because they killed a victim in pretty much the same way Richard Byrd was killed? Why or why not? Be specific.
Don’t pretend that it’s all stoped.
No one is, nice strawman again.
Until it is, the government has a duty to work to make sure it is.
And how, exactly, does the government go about this? Laws against homicide don’t prevent people from committing it, they only serve to punish someone after the offense has been committed. I fail to see how punishing someone for thought will have any deterrent effect.
To simply say ‘Oh well, I guess the Aryians (sp?) are always going to kill blacks, can’t shine a spotlight on that...got to consider the rights of the skinheads.
Please. Does not the concept of innocent until proven guilty mean anything? How about proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I know I read that somewhere. Just because a skinhead (to use your example) is accused of a homicide does not automatically mean they committed said crime.
It’s been a religion and hobby of their’s for years now,
And if they commit a homicide exercising their “hobby”, get caught, then get subsequently convicted for said crime, they do get punished for it. Murder carries a pretty stiff penalty, in most states conviction carries an automatic life sentence.
we can’t infringe on their good time’
Once again, nice strawman.
it’s ridiculous. What’s even more ridiculous is arguing that the law results in an unfair playing field for the skinhead.
So the rights of the accused mean absolutely nothing to you? Instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt we convict said skinhead because they look scary, that about it? The deck is automatically stacked against the State in all criminal prosecutions the burden of proof rests on them. If they can’t meet that burden then the accused walks. Been that way for a very long time and it’s worked pretty well, why change it now?
Because that’s who your sticking up for when you argue against this, the rights of a skinhead who gets drunk and bored...
Uh-uh, yeah sure. </sarcasm>
And after that, if not before, he offically Godwin’s the thread. I’m done. You guys want to smack him around some more, have fun.
The crime is still murder, and in a society where all men are supposed to be created equal, the only fair thing to do is treat everyone as such.
Excellent point. If we’re supposed to be equal under law, how can motivation be a factor in judgement?
Again, it’s the act, not the motive behind it.
so Bin Laden is not as guilty as the cowards that actually flew the planes?
never mind that post, I jumped the gun, and totaly misread what you were talking about.
No, he is just as guilty for sending them on their mission, but the 19 of them could have walked away at any time. “Just following orders” has not been a valid excuse since Nuremburg
So the difference is that between Hitler and your ordinary SS officer, or between Saddam and his fedayeen, or Howard Dean and the asshats who were slashing tires of Republican “Get out the vote” vans on Election Day.
The guilt is shared equally, even if the specifics are up to the individual, rather than the planner.
Not to revive old threads or anything…
But evidence that hate crime legislation is unfairly applied is all over the place.
Although a gang of black boys (up to 30!) beat four white girls bloody while calling them “white crackers” and shouting “black power,” the cops say it’s not a hate crime. No explanation appears in the article.
According to the New York penal code (crime occurred in New York), a hate crime is an offense “committed against persons intentionally selected ‘because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation’ of those persons.”
Beating white females and calling them “white crackers.” Sounds like a hate crime to me. Then again, who am I but a reasonable person living in the real world and not a pre-programmed politically correct grievance shopper living in a socialist utopia inside my own head?
Read about another non-hate crime where black football players knocked out a white man while he was dancing with his black wife because he’s a white man married to a black woman.
...
Remember the Hmong immigrant who killed white people in Wisconsin? Not a hate crime.
I’d love to see our resident idiocy apologist (where are you, deadissue?) show me a single incident of a “minority” being charged under any hate crime legislation for targeting whites. Just one, with independently verifiable evidence…
Shouldn’t be too hard if enforcement is as fair and even-handed as he thinks it is.
Then again, I could be right, and he’s just full of shit.
Next entry: It's Not His Fault
Previous entry: How They Blew It
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 7041
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 80
Total anonymous users: 1
Hal_10000,
Irmo,
noxiousphysicia,
,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
The $8.7 Billion Hole
(4 total, Last @ 10:43)
Ed Kline: There’s a part of me that thinks we should still keep trying to fix these countries. But there’s a growing part that thinks this would be just throwing good money after bad. The world will make you a libertarian yet Hal.
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 08:46)
Seattle Outcast: What about the vermin sure to co inhabit the place with muirgeo1? Surly if you could overcome your allergy for the plywood shack you would then have to deal with that too? Would a .45 auto be overkill for shooting vermin? On second thought, I'll just torch the place and…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:52)
AlexinCT: I know “the wealthy” make for great rhetorical fodder on the campaign trail, but I really would like to see someone runningn for election acknowledge that these evil greedy rich elite are actually also the ones who take the business risks required to real create jobs. Every time I hear…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:25)
Seattle Outcast: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) I'm allergic to cheap plywood shacks...
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 06:01)
Retluocc1: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) Okay, now THAT made me laugh.
Last 30 Comments
When it was written, the Constitution was unique in that it spelled out the rights of the people and made them paramount over the power of government. This was an extremely radical notion in the eighteenth century. Many Europeans don’t understand because our history is so different from theirs.