All Things Second Amendment

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
Why don't you leave your car running and your doors unlocked when you go to the grocery store?

Because I have no fear of law abiding citizens, I fear those that wish to steal or do me harm. How do you feel that this nonsensical statement makes your point? Heck it makes mine...


Actually, the gun laws in the UK aren't a recent thing and neither is knife use. The spike in that is primarily in cities among the young. That's in large part accompanying a marked decrease in police stop and searches.

False statement, the very reason that criminals use knives instead of guns is because that guns are not readily available, just proves my point further that it isn't a weapon problem but, a people problem.

But if you want to compare homicides and rates between the countries that have had these laws in place for generations and us, I'm game. That's a great idea whose outcome you will not find favorable.

I am not comparing anything, you are, I simply pointed out the fact that absence of one weapon doesn't stop the motivation to do harm to another, in fact the weapon is not material to my point. Bad people will always find a way to do harm to others if that is their intention whether it is a knife, an AR, or a pressure cooker bomb...the list is long and extensive of the possibilities to do individual or mass damage. The thought that limiting the law abiding from acquiring legal weapons ie. guns is going to net less incidents of bad people doing harm to others is just nonsense.

Can't be done. But you can ban the weapon of choice of late for evil men who want to see how many kids, parishioners, Jews, blacks, or concert goers they can take down before they're stopped. That we can do and we should do.

Bullcrap! Anyone can download blueprints for many different weapons including AR style weapons, so you think that confiscating legal weapons from the law abiding will keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals in a country this size? If you really believe that than you need to sober up.


Insanity is in doing nothing. Insanity is in believing we can cure human nature of the thing that breeds evil men. Sanity is doing the good you can do instead of arguing that if we can't do every we shouldn't do any.

Insanity is believing that disarming the citizenry will solve the problem because clearly that does not work.

You don't really believe that anyway. You just pretend to when it comes to guns.

So that is the best you got? Insults? What a jackass...you show just how pompous and ignorant you are with a statement like that...grow up!
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So you believe that mercantilism didn't exist prior to the Civil war? Or Corporatism? I beg to differ, the free market capitalistic system which is exactly what the founders envisioned is exactly what we have today albeit the money is in fewer hands now because of size & conglomeration of many smaller companies over time. However even today any person that has a better mousetrap is a threat to even the largest conglomerate. Look at Jeff Bezos, he was just a middle class kid with an idea for an online bookstore...now the richest man on the planet and his ideas of different things keep him growing, same for most of the tech business'...they have all but, destroyed brick & mortar conglomerates such as Sears or Kmart. Nothing magical happened because of the civil war, what we have seen is the natural order of capitalism in a free society...anyone with the drive & a good idea can do it.
Those are good points. I think the argument that the US started it's present democracy at the civil war comes more from the change in the authority structure than the economics. Before the civil war the nation considered itself a union of separate nations that could leave the union on a whim. After the war it was established that DC was in control of separate regions. This change in the paradigm, one would have a good argument making, would change every citizen's thinking to the point one could call it nation-changing.
 

Right Divider

Body part
So you believe that mercantilism didn't exist prior to the Civil war?
I should have worded that better.... what I meant was became dominant.

Or Corporatism? I beg to differ, the free market capitalistic system which is exactly what the founders envisioned is exactly what we have today albeit the money is in fewer hands now because of size & conglomeration of many smaller companies over time.
I beg to differ.... the system that we have today is far from a free market. Though some remnants of that system do still remain.

However even today any person that has a better mousetrap is a threat to even the largest conglomerate. Look at Jeff Bezos, he was just a middle class kid with an idea for an online bookstore...now the richest man on the planet and his ideas of different things keep him growing, same for most of the tech business'...they have all but, destroyed brick & mortar conglomerates such as Sears or Kmart. Nothing magical happened because of the civil war, what we have seen is the natural order of capitalism in a free society...anyone with the drive & a good idea can do it.
Indeed, some remnants of the free market do still remain.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
I beg to differ.... the system that we have today is far from a free market. Though some remnants of that system do still remain.

Please do tell....


Indeed, some remnants of the free market do still remain.

Oh I am fully aware that it does, and did back then as well just not as refined as now. Do you not think that Steel manufacturing, shipping, the railroad, plantations, textiles, etc. were not corporatist? I assure you they were the largest of their time, and given the lack of the tech we have today were absolutely comparable. As transportation & communication evolved it only got bigger. The likes of Carnagie, Rockefeller, Hurst, Dupont, and Kennedy were a few of the Gates & Bezos' of their time. There is nothing new here it has just evolved but, like I said before the free market does exist or old money would still rule, and it doesn't. Just like then you had to have the idea and capitalize to achieve it but, that still exists today...it is called liberty.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
Those are good points. I think the argument that the US started it's present democracy at the civil war comes more from the change in the authority structure than the economics. Before the civil war the nation considered itself a union of separate nations that could leave the union on a whim. After the war it was established that DC was in control of separate regions. This change in the paradigm, one would have a good argument making, would change every citizen's thinking to the point one could call it nation-changing.

Now that is a point of view I can agree with. The Civil War changed the nature of states rights and centralized power, and from that point on the power structure changed but, the nature capitalism did not. Honestly speaking I believe that cronyism from DC is what we are dealing with now, but, I have to believe that same cronyism existed at the state levels as well, as long as someone has some level of control, there is always someone that will exploit that power for gain. Kind of the story of mankind, no?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Oh I am fully aware that it does, and did back then as well just not as refined as now. Do you not think that Steel manufacturing, shipping, the railroad, plantations, textiles, etc. were not corporatist? I assure you they were the largest of their time, and given the lack of the tech we have today were absolutely comparable. As transportation & communication evolved it only got bigger. The likes of Carnagie, Rockefeller, Hurst, Dupont, and Kennedy were a few of the Gates & Bezos' of their time. There is nothing new here it has just evolved but, like I said before the free market does exist or old money would still rule, and it doesn't. Just like then you had to have the idea and capitalize to achieve it but, that still exists today...it is called liberty.
While the US may be one of the freest markets, it is far from free.

Take the huge lobbying market that skews the free market greatly.

I'm sure that you'll need substantial documentation that I'm not willing to put the effort in to collecting for you.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
While the US may be one of the freest markets, it is far from free.

Take the huge lobbying market that skews the free market greatly.

I'm sure that you'll need substantial documentation that I'm not willing to put the effort in to collecting for you.

I think I understand your position but, I disagree that cronyism, and when we speak of lobbying that is exactly what cronyism is really, and that has always existed. People have always used money & influence to achieve their goals, that too is not a new phenomena.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I think i understand your position but, I disagree that cronyism, and when we speak of lobbying that is exactly what cronyism is really, and that has always existed. People have always used money & influence to achieve their goals, that too is not a new phenomena.
I'm not saying that it's new.... it's just far larger then ever before.

The government is so large and intrusive that the free market is very significantly shrunken.

One good example is the push to raise the "minimum wage" (which is itself entirely anti-free market and anti-freedom) will force many otherwise viable free market businesses out of business.
 

rocketman

Resident Rocket Surgeon
Hall of Fame
I'm not saying that it's new.... it's just far larger then ever before.

Rest assure that is all a matter of prospective. Rest assured the people at the time of the civil war bemoaned the same thing. Things grow & evolve but, the prospective of it is relative to the times you live in. The requirement for attaining success remains constant.

The government is so large and intrusive that the free market is very significantly shrunken.

See Above.

One good example is the push to raise the "minimum wage" (which is itself entirely anti-free market and anti-freedom) will force many otherwise viable free market businesses out of business.

The push to raise the minimum wage is not, nor has it ever been a free market tenet. The minimum wage push is by marxist/socialists that want no free market but, a government controlled & mandated market, this is not free market capitalism.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And good on him. I'm focusing on modern democratic models and noting that the gun laws I advocate have made populations safer without sacrificing civil liberty or establishing tyranny.
Translation: "I'm sticking with the No True Scotsman fallacy otherwise my argument fails".

Actually there was a ban on some before and it lapsed. Those guns came back. That said, I'd hope a better series of laws and the recognition of the citizenry that would go something like, "You know what we haven't had much of in a long while? A schoolyard, church, park, concert, etc., turned into a shooting gallery...getting rid of those ARs was a great idea."
All the guns prior got grandfathered in with the AWB. No gun was taken and given back, they were all utilized, sold, or held. Can you show an example of someone getting back a gun they turned in because of a ban?

Who knows what anything will look like in a thousand years. But I'm all for saving lives in the next thousand days.
You won't save lives with your ban. Even in the next 1000 days. And when the country fails politically like all democracies, no matter when that happens, if we don't have a ban things will transform with a great deal less bloodshed.

A thing we can and should do, because there's just no rational point to not doing it.
Except the rational points you ignore.

Thank goodness I didn't set that out as a definition then...but an elitist necessarily judges himself and/or his group superior to others.
Oh, but you did - "the person you're calling a judge" refers to you using the word 'judge' in place of the word 'elitist'.

Yorzhik said:
It's someone who won't listen to reasonable arguments people he believes to be his lessors.
Town Heretic said:
Now you're just making it up, which is funny given your attempt at complaint.
My nutshell definition is pretty accurate. I notice you won't provide a definition that is much different.

Yorzhik said:
you were shown to have weak statistics
Town Heretic said:
I know you believe that's what happened. I accept that you genuinely believe that happened. And it makes me a little sad that you believe that happened, because it didn't.
It did. And you homogenize your data.

Sure, you won't acknowledge these obvious failings because they come from people you believe to be your lessors. This is what makes you an elitist.

Yorzhik said:
Great, so if we all keep our guns and use them only for self defense you will take the punishment for us if the prosecutor doesn't use his discretion. Excuse me if I'm not reassured. :rolleyes:
Town Heretic said:
What Yor did was try to cobble the worst possible case for prosecuting someone for having a weapon they understand is illegal to keep and then confuse the response to that scenario with the way the rule should look.

A law that doesn't allow for mitigation in recognition of exceptional circumstances isn't much of a law. I doubt a prosecutor would do more than confiscate the weapon and have her plea for probation.
In other words, TH likes laws that are malleable so he and his fellow lawyers can do whatever they want in the justice system. He doesn't realize that makes for a bad justice system.

The state may, for a legitimate reason, interrupt your possession of property, may work restraints on the exercise of right, but the level of scrutiny is extraordinary.

Wait. So your hypothetical involves someone who registers a weapon he knows is illegal? Because both of those would be coming in together, law wise. :plain: Okay, morons will absolutely run into trouble.
No, when all guns are registered any gun that gets declared illegal will come with probable cause.

Let's say the laws you support get enacted. Registration, licensing, and a ban on semi-autos. How will the argument you are using will be different when the next mass shooting happens? After your first ban, registration will mean probable cause and confiscation for the next ban.

I know what you said. I answered on that already. I was trying to make your position more of a parallel.

I'm just not going to legitimize the idea that rape is in any meaningful sense an appropriate parallel here.
It's the same. Rape and confiscation are a close parallel. Especially when the government is confiscating something that can save your life.

Australia says otherwise. So does every European democracy.
The statistics you rely on to claim this are wrong. The statistics I presented are correct and show more guns equals less crime.

False premise. I'm not denying anyone the ability to defend themselves with a weapon. I'm denying the rationality of suggesting that an AR should be that weapon.

I haven't argued for confiscating guns at all.

Well, we're speaking about ARs, though I'd like to see all semi-automatics off the shelves. And ARs aren't anything like that as a portion of the market.
Whoa whoa whoa... wait... what?

You've switched to ARs only in your proposal? Even when you know ARs are the same as any other semi-auto?

Yes, yes, that's very smart. It does nothing to stop crazy people from killing more people, but you get registration and bureaucratic gatekeepers for all future gun purchases. Then you can take any guns you want in the next ban.

Brilliant.

Saul Alisky would be proud
They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.



So good luck with that. I'm sure you will be successful with the MSM, entertainment, academia, bureaucrats, and most politicians on your side. Not to mention a big chunk of the voting population. And of course, when the unwashed masses get oppressed it won't bother you because you aren't one of them.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Rest assure that is all a matter of prospective. Rest assured the people at the time of the civil war bemoaned the same thing. Things grow & evolve but, the prospective of it is relative to the times you live in. The requirement for attaining success remains constant.
That is rather silly.

See Above.
See Above.

The push to raise the minimum wage is not, nor has it ever been a free market tenet. The minimum wage push is by marxist/socialists that want no free market but, a government controlled & mandated market, this is not free market capitalism.
Yes, that is just one example of a million that limits the free market very significantly.

On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the best possible free market... the current system is about a 9.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Translation: "I'm sticking with the No True Scotsman fallacy otherwise my argument fails".


All the guns prior got grandfathered in with the AWB. No gun was taken and given back, they were all utilized, sold, or held. Can you show an example of someone getting back a gun they turned in because of a ban?


You won't save lives with your ban. Even in the next 1000 days. And when the country fails politically like all democracies, no matter when that happens, if we don't have a ban things will transform with a great deal less bloodshed.


Except the rational points you ignore.


Oh, but you did - "the person you're calling a judge" refers to you using the word 'judge' in place of the word 'elitist'.


My nutshell definition is pretty accurate. I notice you won't provide a definition that is much different.


It did. And you homogenize your data.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...nd-Amendment&p=5346710&viewfull=1#post5346710

Sure, you won't acknowledge these obvious failings because they come from people you believe to be your lessors. This is what makes you an elitist.


In other words, TH likes laws that are malleable so he and his fellow lawyers can do whatever they want in the justice system. He doesn't realize that makes for a bad justice system.


No, when all guns are registered any gun that gets declared illegal will come with probable cause.

Let's say the laws you support get enacted. Registration, licensing, and a ban on semi-autos. How will the argument you are using will be different when the next mass shooting happens? After your first ban, registration will mean probable cause and confiscation for the next ban.


It's the same. Rape and confiscation are a close parallel. Especially when the government is confiscating something that can save your life.


The statistics you rely on to claim this are wrong. The statistics I presented are correct and show more guns equals less crime.


Whoa whoa whoa... wait... what?

You've switched to ARs only in your proposal? Even when you know ARs are the same as any other semi-auto?

Yes, yes, that's very smart. It does nothing to stop crazy people from killing more people, but you get registration and bureaucratic gatekeepers for all future gun purchases. Then you can take any guns you want in the next ban.

Brilliant.

Saul Alisky would be proud
They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.



So good luck with that. I'm sure you will be successful with the MSM, entertainment, academia, bureaucrats, and most politicians on your side. Not to mention a big chunk of the voting population. And of course, when the unwashed masses get oppressed it won't bother you because you aren't one of them.

I see you too have a problem with typos. (Saul Alisky vs Saul Alinsky). My typos drive me nuts.

I do have a small difference of opinion with you on the matter of TH not having anything to worry about because he's not one of the unwashed masses. If we go back into the history of socialism we find that not being one of the masses is no guarantee of not getting eliminated by the powers that be. Remember Trotsky, and thousands of other revolutionaries, who were eliminated (killed) because they were a perceived threat to Stalin? How about the SA led by Ernst Rohm in Germany and the Night of the Long Knives? Hitler killed off a lot of those who helped him gain power after he had solidified his personal power. Why did he have them knocked off? Because, once again, they were a perceived threat. None of those people, in either case, were actual threats to the persons they helped put into power, but they were possible rivals so they had to be eliminated.

If TH should somehow find himself a rising star in the socialist "utopia" to come he would in all likelihood find himself being a perceived threat and thus liable to being killed by one of those guns taken away from the masses. Socialist "utopias" aren't a very safe place for anyone with ambition and any kind of talent.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I see you too have a problem with typos. (Saul Alisky vs Saul Alinsky). My typos drive me nuts.
Yeah, it's a problem.

I do have a small difference of opinion with you on the matter of TH not having anything to worry about because he's not one of the unwashed masses. If we go back into the history of socialism we find that not being one of the masses is no guarantee of not getting eliminated by the powers that be. Remember Trotsky, and thousands of other revolutionaries, who were eliminated (killed) because they were a perceived threat to Stalin? How about the SA led by Ernst Rohm in Germany and the Night of the Long Knives? Hitler killed off a lot of those who helped him gain power after he had solidified his personal power. Why did he have them knocked off? Because, once again, they were a perceived threat. None of those people, in either case, were actual threats to the persons they helped put into power, but they were possible rivals so they had to be eliminated.

If TH should somehow find himself a rising star in the socialist "utopia" to come he would in all likelihood find himself being a perceived threat and thus liable to being killed by one of those guns taken away from the masses. Socialist "utopias" aren't a very safe place for anyone with ambition and any kind of talent.
Although I didn't make it clear, it's TH's perception of himself that gives him assurance that he won't have to worry about the coming oppression, at least not much.

But you are absolutely correct. The fact that he holds an anti-abortion position is dangerous in those circles, and I don't know if he sees that. I doubt he has the experience with his ivory tower tribe to know how they treat infidels, especially how they treat people that apologize. In that tribe an apology is a statement that one will stop fighting them and will take any amount of punishment - even up to death.

The fact that his sense of justice is so incredibly warped tells me he is unaware.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Yeah, it's a problem.


Although I didn't make it clear, it's TH's perception of himself that gives him assurance that he won't have to worry about the coming oppression, at least not much.

But you are absolutely correct. The fact that he holds an anti-abortion position is dangerous in those circles, and I don't know if he sees that. I doubt he has the experience with his ivory tower tribe to know how they treat infidels, especially how they treat people that apologize. In that tribe an apology is a statement that one will stop fighting them and will take any amount of punishment - even up to death.

The fact that his sense of justice is so incredibly warped tells me he is unaware.
One more thing to add on to your analysis. That anyone holds to any individualistic ideas is an extremely dangerous place to be in a socialist "utopia". All thought must be surrendered to the state or else the power of the state will be used against you. And in an authoritarian state that power is immense. It is orders of magnitude greater than it is in a free market society republic. It's the ability of the socialist mind set to deceive themselves as to their individual immunity to the power of the state that causes them to support those ideas as workable and preferable to the state that both allows, and prefers, individualism.

There will be many very surprised socialists when/if the reality of complete socialism comes into being here, only it will be far too late to return to their former form of government. Their liberty will be gone and they will have only themselves to blame for their loss of liberty.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Is that true? I've heard and seen lots of examples where these mass murderers commit the crime of threatening, intimidation, or menacing, sometime before they massacre innocent people. Perhaps our society is a bit too quick to 'turn a blind eye' to these crimes when they're committed, perhaps reasoning that since there's no physical harm done during the commission of this crime, then it's justified to 'look the other way,' and just hope things get better.

If this is true then we need the same vigilance as we also need to address the epidemic of child sexual abuse. We can't 'look the other way' or 'turn a blind eye' anymore, we have to take these signals seriously. If it means that a lot of people who will not go on to commit mass murder, or child sexual abuse, are 'inconvenienced' by putting them through the ringer of our criminal justice system, then so be it. Perhaps we need to learn a hard lesson, that this crime of intimidation, or menacing, or threatening (i.e., the old fashioned crime called 'assault,' when it used to be coupled with and contrasted against the crime of 'battery'), cannot be tolerated lightly, and those guilty of this crime must be penalized more severely, in order to dissuade them from going any further, and also generally to dissuade anyone who hasn't committed the crime of menacing, threatening, or intimidation, to not do so.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/21/us/mass-shooting-threats-tuesday/index.html

It's happening, we are finally offering people something besides thoughts and prayers, we are not 'turning a blind eye' anymore to these unlawful threats, we are not settling for the status quo. I myself am guilty of holding my tongue once long ago, when I was in the presence of a person who verbally threatened to commit a massacre. I took them to be kidding, again, this was long ago. I turned a blind eye instead, and didn't call the police. While it is fortunate that they never did act on that threat, it doesn't change that they committed a crime in making it.

But finally I think many more people are not making my mistake anymore, and we are taking the chance that we'll be thought overly dramatic or easily frightened, and call the police, when someone makes an overt threat to massacre. Now finally it's worth the risk, if we hear someone do this, threaten to massacre, which is a crime, we alert the police, because it's a crime, not because "maybe they'll really do it," but because it's a crime.

It is not protected, lawful, free speech, to credibly threaten to massacre, or to menace. It is a crime, and many massacres are preceded by this crime, and it is now happening that America is choosing against 'turning a blind eye' to it. We just need to keep this up, and things will actually improve, on the massacre front. They give themselves away, frequently, all we have to do is follow through.

Things have already improved. 'Supra,' the link.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/21/us/mass-shooting-threats-tuesday/index.html

It's happening, we are finally offering people something besides thoughts and prayers, we are not 'turning a blind eye' anymore to these unlawful threats, we are not settling for the status quo. I myself am guilty of holding my tongue once long ago, when I was in the presence of a person who verbally threatened to commit a massacre. I took them to be kidding, again, this was long ago. I turned a blind eye instead, and didn't call the police. While it is fortunate that they never did act on that threat, it doesn't change that they committed a crime in making it.

But finally I think many more people are not making my mistake anymore, and we are taking the chance that we'll be thought overly dramatic or easily frightened, and call the police, when someone makes an overt threat to massacre. Now finally it's worth the risk, if we hear someone do this, threaten to massacre, which is a crime, we alert the police, because it's a crime, not because "maybe they'll really do it," but because it's a crime.

It is not protected, lawful, free speech, to credibly threaten to massacre, or to menace. It is a crime, and many massacres are preceded by this crime, and it is now happening that America is choosing against 'turning a blind eye' to it. We just need to keep this up, and things will actually improve, on the massacre front. They give themselves away, frequently, all we have to do is follow through.

Things have already improved. 'Supra,' the link.
So my natural dilemma is, I need to 'turn in' my friend. That's the dilemma that we all face together, all those who are friends with someone who made a threat to massacre that might not have been said in jest or in another exercise of lawful wit (which is right and just exercise of the human right to free speech and to free press and to free ideas, etc.).

We know our friends, and we know their anger, and we have to judge whether what they just said, was worthy of calling the police. Was it a crime, what my friend did? I think so, but I worry that I'm only being over sensitized to such threats, due to being American, where guns that can kill very rapidly and from far away (Las Vegas), are not 'easily enough' available, but are still easily available according to, a hypothetical typical centrist, politically.

It could be, that in every other country, being unable to acquire the firepower that we Americans can acquire, through, in relation to what it takes to drive a car licitly here, proportionally fair ease, there is 'ceteris paribus' more freedom to threaten to massacre. It is a price that Americans only must pay if such is the case, due again to the aforementioned relatively easy access to weapons that can massacre a lot of people from far away (Las Vegas).

We are not free to threaten to massacre. Not like the rest of the world. It's what we give up in order to enjoy our natural human right to bear arms, and as such if you follow the logic therefore we don't actually possess a right to threaten to massacre. That is not lawful exercise of your right to free speech, but is a crime, it is called threatening or menacing, a literal crime. No right exists to commit a crime, and there is no right to steal someone's rights either.

In all the other countries where the right to bear arms is 'perverted beyond all recognition' (an homage to a right and just WWII-era American acronymic neologism), it is possible that, when their people make threats to massacre, it is statistically less likely to result in massacre, than in America. It could be that Americans have been trying to live for too long under the rules the rest of the world lives under, instead of the rules dictated by the classical liberal bones of America the greatest idea in political philosophy since the dawn of our species, and this has been a horrible way to learn a very hard lesson, that to properly exercise the right to bear arms, you must take threats to massacre seriously, more seriously than you would like to, because it's uncomfortable to consider 'turning in' my own friend.

But the other trouble caused by living according to European or other Western Industrial Democracy's rules, where the right to bear arms is pubar (perverted beyond all recognition, an homage), is that people wouldn't threaten to massacre, if it was plainly fundamentally illegal to do so, and this would immediately drop the massacres, because of the recognition that we are going to call police more quickly now, if you ever threaten to massacre, or menace.

And you, knowing this, will censor your speech in response, if you're a safe person, and if you don't, then you will be arrested for committing the crime of menacing, or credibly threatening to massacre. What I'm getting at is that my friend wasn't given the same conditions then, as they would be today, in a world where we are beginning to learn how crucial it is that we do not permit people to freely commit the fundamentally criminal, threatening to massacre.

If my friend were given today's condition, where people are beginning to wake up to how very vital and important it is to call the police when someone credibly threatens to massacre, then they would have censored themselves, but that very strong sanction didn't exist back then, so long ago, but now we are trying to strengthen the sanction, by actively participating in the process of our police prosecuting this crime, by 'turning in' our friends.

So because we weren't then, and weren't ever until recently, taking credible threats to massacre, and menacing, for the serious and natural crimes that they are, we created and fostered a false world in a way, that improperly rewarded people for doing the wrong thing, inadvertently. That is not a fair test of a person's character if we compare theirs to ours, without acknowledging and properly weighting the definite absence of the 'ceteris paribus' condition.

=
It is this above, the sort of reasoning you can hear yourself telling you, as you ponder what to do about a friend who's credibly threatened to massacre, even though it was long, long ago, and they never did anything remotely resembling anything like what they threatened since, and whether to call the police. On the one hand, is this overthinking it? And if so, then what is the obvious thing to do? To continue to do nothing, the status quo, and not call police? Or the opposite?

I want the right answer to be that I shouldn't call the police because the times were different, and given the same set of conditions long ago, that some people today who would never menace because the presently strengthening sanction against menacing works for them, would menace if the situation was like it was long ago when my friend said something that I still think about.

Would my friend actually do it? is a tempting question, but that's just the wrong question. That's the type of question people would ask themselves when learning that someone they knew and trusted and respected was abusing children. "Would they really do that? No!"

Wrong question. We're too close to make a good judgment anyway, and that's OK, because our criminal justice system has been running quite well for centuries now, and it only gets better as the decades pass by. It's focused on finding facts, and it specializes in sifting facts from fiction. If it is a fact that a person really wants to massacre, then that is just what our criminal justice system is very good at determining.

If it is found that it was a false alarm, we are naturally relieved and hope the person either learned their lesson, or was able to address the conditions that led to their involuntary infraction of the law. False alarms are good news, and would reinforce the current law forbidding menacing, and threats to massacre.
 
Top