Beiruty,
Thank you for your candid and eye-opening response.
Of course you are right.
I agree that I was wrong to mention any reference to religion for any reason, including rhetorical reasons. And for that error I sincerely apologize to you, to the moderators, and to anybody who took offense notwithstanding that none was intended.
Sincerely,
VT
Search found 3 matches
Return to “A sane public policy without trampling self defense rights”
- Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:06 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: A sane public policy without trampling self defense rights
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2563
- Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:34 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: A sane public policy without trampling self defense rights
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2563
Re: A sane public policy without trampling self defense righ
Quote:
That is an awful lot of assuming. Are you a wolf in sheep's clothing or a sheep in wolf's clothing? You have made two posts now which come from posts made on "another forum" per your own words. These posts bounce both sides and leave me confused as to what you are looking for or what forms your specific opinion. You mention Florida, well we already have a rousing discussion of this and how it can impact our rights here:
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=53427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is that what this post is about?
Best of wishes, but I would still like to hear your opinion rather than a compendium of others from someone else's forum.
Sugarland Dave,
Thank you for the best wishes. I hope they are sincere. Juxtaposed as they are against your question as to whether “I am a wolf in sheep’s clothing or a sheep in wolf’s clothing?” I do confess some doubt though. Notwithstanding that your question looks a lot like “Are you still beating your wife?” I will answer it anyway: I am neither. I am a devoted and loving husband and father, and I am a man. I dress in a man’s clothing – and the clothing of a common man at that.
As to your request for my opinions, I'm perplexed. In my essay, my opinions are prefaced by "I believe". But since you've asked for them, I’m happy to give them to you – by the boatload:
It is my opinion that "we the people" of the greatest nation on earth, should all hold ourselves accountable for our words and deeds, whether said or done semi- anonymously on an internet forum, or face to face at an ATM while we are armed, and in every encounter with every other human being with whom we cross paths, especially children; and that we should be guided by the Christian values of kindness, humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, on which our nation was founded, and as as encapsulated and summarized by the Ten Commandments.
And quite frankly, it is my opinion that “we the people” are making a rather poor accounting for ourselves – regardless of which side of the political debate and spectrum we’re on. We the “little people”, whether we fancy ourselves conservative or liberal, are being manipulated like puppets and played for suckers, by the Machiavellian organs of the government and the media. The buzz words here are “divide and conquer”. In my opinion, corruption, hypocrisy, and abuse of power are the coin of the realm of both political elites, and that these “coins” are quietly exchanged among and between both political parties, as needed, to stay in power. I’m no fan of Sarah Palin. But she has it about right. Both the republican and the democratic power elites, equally fear and loathe the grass roots and the “tea party”. There is a saying: “Where the people lead the leaders will quickly follow. And those in power both prefer things to remain just as they are, thank you very much.
It is my opinion that "we the people" are committing national suicide by refusing to hold a meaningful courteous, and civil dialogue – AMONG OURSELVES - even though we have at our fingertips the most perfect and powerful platform to do so – the internet – that the world has ever seen. But what do we do? We, the divided American people, squander this resource, squabble and spew hatred and vitriole, while our “leaders” distract and divide us, and continue to spend our great nation into oblivion. Even this forum is divided. Arrogance, rudeness, and shrill posturing are the hallmarks of every aspect of our national discourse – even within this forum, notwithstanding our fine moderators’ best efforts, and notwithstanding that we are SUPPOSEDLY of similar political persuasion. Instead of listening to each other, each of us is a radio transmitting. Whenever somebody says something with which we disagree, we don’t listen and contemplate what they’ve said. We simply pump up our own volume and the level of our own personal attack.
Maybe if we can practice being civil to each other in here, we can perfect the skill, and then hold a wider dialogue with the other fifty percent of the American people. Yes, I mean those damned liberals. Because they vote too. Our choices are few and stark: Political dialogue and compromise, civil war, dictatorship and even worse. While we bicker and squabble, horribly divided, the Islamist fundamentalists are more united than ever before, and patiently plot and wait for an opportunity to “convert” us or behead us.
Do I think anything I post is going to change the world – or even this group? Heck no. But that won't stop me from attempting to add the voice of compassion and reason, notwithstanding that I have faint hope of being heard amid the cacophany.
As to your apparent criticism that I am (and/or am posting) "a compendium of others from someone else's forum" I will start my answer with this: Each and every one of us is "a compendium of others". I am a compendium of that poor Martin boy. And his parents. And of George Zimmerman. And his parents.
And I am a compendium of John Donne, to whose immortal words I will defer, and humbly adopt as my own, in concluding this response:
"No man is an island
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne"
Respectfully submitted.
VT
That is an awful lot of assuming. Are you a wolf in sheep's clothing or a sheep in wolf's clothing? You have made two posts now which come from posts made on "another forum" per your own words. These posts bounce both sides and leave me confused as to what you are looking for or what forms your specific opinion. You mention Florida, well we already have a rousing discussion of this and how it can impact our rights here:
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=53427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is that what this post is about?
Best of wishes, but I would still like to hear your opinion rather than a compendium of others from someone else's forum.
Sugarland Dave,
Thank you for the best wishes. I hope they are sincere. Juxtaposed as they are against your question as to whether “I am a wolf in sheep’s clothing or a sheep in wolf’s clothing?” I do confess some doubt though. Notwithstanding that your question looks a lot like “Are you still beating your wife?” I will answer it anyway: I am neither. I am a devoted and loving husband and father, and I am a man. I dress in a man’s clothing – and the clothing of a common man at that.
As to your request for my opinions, I'm perplexed. In my essay, my opinions are prefaced by "I believe". But since you've asked for them, I’m happy to give them to you – by the boatload:
It is my opinion that "we the people" of the greatest nation on earth, should all hold ourselves accountable for our words and deeds, whether said or done semi- anonymously on an internet forum, or face to face at an ATM while we are armed, and in every encounter with every other human being with whom we cross paths, especially children; and that we should be guided by the Christian values of kindness, humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, on which our nation was founded, and as as encapsulated and summarized by the Ten Commandments.
And quite frankly, it is my opinion that “we the people” are making a rather poor accounting for ourselves – regardless of which side of the political debate and spectrum we’re on. We the “little people”, whether we fancy ourselves conservative or liberal, are being manipulated like puppets and played for suckers, by the Machiavellian organs of the government and the media. The buzz words here are “divide and conquer”. In my opinion, corruption, hypocrisy, and abuse of power are the coin of the realm of both political elites, and that these “coins” are quietly exchanged among and between both political parties, as needed, to stay in power. I’m no fan of Sarah Palin. But she has it about right. Both the republican and the democratic power elites, equally fear and loathe the grass roots and the “tea party”. There is a saying: “Where the people lead the leaders will quickly follow. And those in power both prefer things to remain just as they are, thank you very much.
It is my opinion that "we the people" are committing national suicide by refusing to hold a meaningful courteous, and civil dialogue – AMONG OURSELVES - even though we have at our fingertips the most perfect and powerful platform to do so – the internet – that the world has ever seen. But what do we do? We, the divided American people, squander this resource, squabble and spew hatred and vitriole, while our “leaders” distract and divide us, and continue to spend our great nation into oblivion. Even this forum is divided. Arrogance, rudeness, and shrill posturing are the hallmarks of every aspect of our national discourse – even within this forum, notwithstanding our fine moderators’ best efforts, and notwithstanding that we are SUPPOSEDLY of similar political persuasion. Instead of listening to each other, each of us is a radio transmitting. Whenever somebody says something with which we disagree, we don’t listen and contemplate what they’ve said. We simply pump up our own volume and the level of our own personal attack.
Maybe if we can practice being civil to each other in here, we can perfect the skill, and then hold a wider dialogue with the other fifty percent of the American people. Yes, I mean those damned liberals. Because they vote too. Our choices are few and stark: Political dialogue and compromise, civil war, dictatorship and even worse. While we bicker and squabble, horribly divided, the Islamist fundamentalists are more united than ever before, and patiently plot and wait for an opportunity to “convert” us or behead us.
Do I think anything I post is going to change the world – or even this group? Heck no. But that won't stop me from attempting to add the voice of compassion and reason, notwithstanding that I have faint hope of being heard amid the cacophany.
As to your apparent criticism that I am (and/or am posting) "a compendium of others from someone else's forum" I will start my answer with this: Each and every one of us is "a compendium of others". I am a compendium of that poor Martin boy. And his parents. And of George Zimmerman. And his parents.
And I am a compendium of John Donne, to whose immortal words I will defer, and humbly adopt as my own, in concluding this response:
"No man is an island
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne"
Respectfully submitted.
VT
- Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:49 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: A sane public policy without trampling self defense rights
- Replies: 10
- Views: 2563
A sane public policy without trampling self defense rights
Preamble:
I originally posted this to another CHL forum in which the moderators have prohibited any discussion of "that case in Florida". This is the reason for the oblique references.
******************************************************************************
This post represents my thoughtful effort to create a simplified model to address the complex legal and emotional issues that have emerged from the recent Florida event “that we dare not speak its name”. That “nameless” event, and others like it have already caused a media feeding frenzy that will enormously complicate – if not make impossible, any objective, rational discussion among ALL Americans, and our elected “leaders”, on how to calibrate a sane public policy that is reconciled with our rights to an effective and “affordable” self defense. For purposes of this essay, I intend for “sane public policy” and “affordable self defense” to signify, respectively, “the means” and “the objective”. I define “affordable self defense” to mean that a would-be victim need not sacrifice his life or physical or mental health to a criminal aggressor on the one hand, or face financial ruin resulting from a criminal prosecution of his act of self defense, on the other. Of course, as with much of life, “the devil is in the details”. But please don’t read this expecting me to have any answers. All I have is reflections and questions.
I think of all laws, especially criminal laws, as “fishing nets”. These “nets” are designed to trawl the sea that is society, and harvest from it, a certain species of fish known as “criminals”.
I presume I can safely assume that ALL Americans, regardless of political stripe or color, save for perhaps the anarchists among us, agree that our government needs these “nets” to protect our society.
Hence, I also presume that we can all agree that the “problem” (i.e. “the media feeding frenzy resulting from the ‘nameless event’) is not the net. Rather, it is the size of the mesh. To those anarchists (or fence sitters) who doubt the need for the net, I hope you will soon visit Somalia; preferably by boat.
The problem (size of the mesh) with any law, civil or criminal, results from the fact that not all of the fish of the targeted species, are the same size. Hence, the net's mesh will never be perfectly sized, which is to say that public policy will never be perfectly calibrated.
The CHL laws in general, and the SYG law in particular, are still largely uncalibrated. At one end of the public policy spectrum we have "the duty to retreat" ("small mesh").and at the other, “Stand Your Ground” ("large mesh").
Sadly, on a Texas CHL forum, I recently saw a post from a member, a CHL holder, to the following tenor: “I used to be afraid of criminals. So I got a CHL. But now that I have a CHL, I’m not in less fear, I’m in twice as much fear. I used to fear criminals and I still do. But now, I also fear my government. The courts. Politicized and selective prosecution as the result of a self defense incident. Financial ruin. And possibly, even incarceration after all the rest, simply as the result of a self defense incident. So, I’m not going to carry anymore”.
In my own personalized idealized utopian dream, the minimum standard for “sane public policy” would/should be one in which we at least fear being wrongly prosecuted by our government less than we fear being victimized by criminals.
As has been stated elsewhere, the problem with the "duty to retreat" is that it makes it easier for the prosecutor to criminalize the behavior of a person who himself was – or was about to be – a victim of a crime. A problem with “stand your ground” is that it diminishes the prosecutor’s power, which in turn empowers the individual citizen. And of course, neither “the powers that be”, nor “the blue state people” who elected them, like this.
Toward the beginning of this essay I disclaimed that I would have any answers. And I don’t. But the “Oracle of Delphi” does. So I will close with an old lawyer’s joke.
After four years of hard work, and now with crushing debt, a bright and diligent young man graduates from law school. Before going into practice he decides to go to the Greek Island of Delphi and consult the Oracle. So he does. He climbs the mountain. With eyes averted, he says “Oh Oracle! I beseech you! I’ve invested all my parents’ retirement money in a legal education. What will it take to become successful and rich?”
The mountains thunder and a deep voice bellows: “GOOD JUDGMENT”.
The guy looks perplexed. So he asks: “Alright then. What does it take to have good judgment”?
The oracle bellows: “EXPERIENCE.”
Still confused, the guy asks: Well, smarty pants. What does it take to get experience???”
To which the oracle replies: “BAD JUDGMENT”.
So, there you have it. I will close with my favorite Teddy Roosevelt line: “Speak softly. And carry a big stick”.
I believe that many people who “carry big sticks” (i.e. concealed weapons) lack the humility and/or the maturity to “speak softly”. I also believe that there is a trace of good in every evil person and that, conversely, there is a trace of evil in all the rest of us. Although that trace evil goes by many names, one of its names is “vigilantism”.
Respectfully submitted,
VT
I originally posted this to another CHL forum in which the moderators have prohibited any discussion of "that case in Florida". This is the reason for the oblique references.
******************************************************************************
This post represents my thoughtful effort to create a simplified model to address the complex legal and emotional issues that have emerged from the recent Florida event “that we dare not speak its name”. That “nameless” event, and others like it have already caused a media feeding frenzy that will enormously complicate – if not make impossible, any objective, rational discussion among ALL Americans, and our elected “leaders”, on how to calibrate a sane public policy that is reconciled with our rights to an effective and “affordable” self defense. For purposes of this essay, I intend for “sane public policy” and “affordable self defense” to signify, respectively, “the means” and “the objective”. I define “affordable self defense” to mean that a would-be victim need not sacrifice his life or physical or mental health to a criminal aggressor on the one hand, or face financial ruin resulting from a criminal prosecution of his act of self defense, on the other. Of course, as with much of life, “the devil is in the details”. But please don’t read this expecting me to have any answers. All I have is reflections and questions.
I think of all laws, especially criminal laws, as “fishing nets”. These “nets” are designed to trawl the sea that is society, and harvest from it, a certain species of fish known as “criminals”.
I presume I can safely assume that ALL Americans, regardless of political stripe or color, save for perhaps the anarchists among us, agree that our government needs these “nets” to protect our society.
Hence, I also presume that we can all agree that the “problem” (i.e. “the media feeding frenzy resulting from the ‘nameless event’) is not the net. Rather, it is the size of the mesh. To those anarchists (or fence sitters) who doubt the need for the net, I hope you will soon visit Somalia; preferably by boat.
The problem (size of the mesh) with any law, civil or criminal, results from the fact that not all of the fish of the targeted species, are the same size. Hence, the net's mesh will never be perfectly sized, which is to say that public policy will never be perfectly calibrated.
The CHL laws in general, and the SYG law in particular, are still largely uncalibrated. At one end of the public policy spectrum we have "the duty to retreat" ("small mesh").and at the other, “Stand Your Ground” ("large mesh").
Sadly, on a Texas CHL forum, I recently saw a post from a member, a CHL holder, to the following tenor: “I used to be afraid of criminals. So I got a CHL. But now that I have a CHL, I’m not in less fear, I’m in twice as much fear. I used to fear criminals and I still do. But now, I also fear my government. The courts. Politicized and selective prosecution as the result of a self defense incident. Financial ruin. And possibly, even incarceration after all the rest, simply as the result of a self defense incident. So, I’m not going to carry anymore”.
In my own personalized idealized utopian dream, the minimum standard for “sane public policy” would/should be one in which we at least fear being wrongly prosecuted by our government less than we fear being victimized by criminals.
As has been stated elsewhere, the problem with the "duty to retreat" is that it makes it easier for the prosecutor to criminalize the behavior of a person who himself was – or was about to be – a victim of a crime. A problem with “stand your ground” is that it diminishes the prosecutor’s power, which in turn empowers the individual citizen. And of course, neither “the powers that be”, nor “the blue state people” who elected them, like this.
Toward the beginning of this essay I disclaimed that I would have any answers. And I don’t. But the “Oracle of Delphi” does. So I will close with an old lawyer’s joke.
After four years of hard work, and now with crushing debt, a bright and diligent young man graduates from law school. Before going into practice he decides to go to the Greek Island of Delphi and consult the Oracle. So he does. He climbs the mountain. With eyes averted, he says “Oh Oracle! I beseech you! I’ve invested all my parents’ retirement money in a legal education. What will it take to become successful and rich?”
The mountains thunder and a deep voice bellows: “GOOD JUDGMENT”.
The guy looks perplexed. So he asks: “Alright then. What does it take to have good judgment”?
The oracle bellows: “EXPERIENCE.”
Still confused, the guy asks: Well, smarty pants. What does it take to get experience???”
To which the oracle replies: “BAD JUDGMENT”.
So, there you have it. I will close with my favorite Teddy Roosevelt line: “Speak softly. And carry a big stick”.
I believe that many people who “carry big sticks” (i.e. concealed weapons) lack the humility and/or the maturity to “speak softly”. I also believe that there is a trace of good in every evil person and that, conversely, there is a trace of evil in all the rest of us. Although that trace evil goes by many names, one of its names is “vigilantism”.
Respectfully submitted,
VT