Is CrackBerry anti-gun?
EDIT: The thread I am referring to is actually not closed, I just replied to it... But I would still like to carry on a peaceful and intelligent conversation on the subject matter below...
I was reading an article in OT about a member buying a Marlin hunting rifle. But after one reply it was closed, even though it was a pretty concise post and no vulgarities or inappropriateness.
It got me thinking. "Is CB anti-gun? And if so, why?"
Personally, I'm a huge supporter of 2nd amendment rights (US Constitution speaking here). I'm not wanting to turn this into a debate, but more so trying to understand the cause or reasons behind people's rationale for their stance. I feel that any un-prohibited person (as outlined) has the right to keep and bear arms, which includes carrying a firearm on their person (concealed carry). Too many times have I personally witnessed violent crimes where a victim could not defend his or herself, and several times where a law abiding person "evened-the-playing-field" and actually thwarted violent acts.
Just like the senior citizen in FL who pulled out his handgun from his waist in an internet cafe last year and stopped two armed robbers. Or last year, when a principal ran to his car and grabbed his .45 auto when an armed gunman stepped foot onto his campus and shot the guy before he could shoot up the school because the principal knew that by the time he spoke to a 9-1-1 dispatcher it would be too late. (any help on links to articles of these recent events would be much appreciated)
But of course, mainstream media never highlighted those heroes...
I understand people feeling the pain involved with incidents like Newtown CT, I too feel for those who lost their children. The interesting thing is that Connecticut is one of the most strictest gun states (right up there with CA and NY and MA), yet it still happened. When I first heard the news my first initial reaction was, "Why didn't anyone shoot back and stop the shooter?" And of course, when I heard it was in Connecticut I just said to myself, "Oh, that's why.." All it would've taken to stop the bad guy with a gun would be a good guy with a gun, just like in the situations above.
Anyway, it'd be nice to hear your thoughts. Again, this is not a political debate, so please, leave the political-democrat-republican-mainstream-media-agenda-propaganda out of it; it doesn't need to be regurgitated for the millionth time...
Last edited by JR A; 01-22-13 at 02:26 AM.
- CrackBerry Addict
01-22-13, 03:50 AM #2
- 591 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
The subject is very devisive and although there is an off-topic section to the forums, it might be easier on the mods to not have to spend so much of their time there because of a small percentage of people wanting to talk about something which is not the main domain of CrackBerry.
- 01-22-13, 08:01 AM #3it doesn't need to be regurgitated for the millionth time...
The thread you are referring to isn't closed, detailed explanations of the whole process were provided my the Mods.
I am not anti-gun but I am anti-!diot.
- 01-22-13, 10:43 AM #4
There's off-topic then there's extremely off-topic. I find it odd that you would even consider this forum the place to post this kind of topic as the people here are BB enthusiasts worldwide and the gun rights issue seams to be quite specific to America.
I am literally biting my tongue trying to prevent myself from flaming here, not because I'm anti-gun, I'm not, but more from the sense of entitlement of gun rights and the pride shown for such an anachronistic amendment that you are such a proponent for (read the 2nd amendment verbatim sometime).
I will not say more, only that I truly believe this is better suited for Gun & Ammo and perhaps CrackBerry should reconsider their policy's for suitability of topics permitted on their forums.
- 01-23-13, 12:08 AM #6
I'll chime in here, it is because people(at least in the US) refuse to accept that owning a firearm is a civil right as SCOTUS(Supreme Court of the United States) has ruled which the law abiding must adhere to. See Heller v DC or McDonald v Chicago.
Furthermore they believe the police will protect them when again SCOTUS has ruled time and time again the police have no duty to protect any individual.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
(7) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
All of which can be summarized right here-
“…a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.” - Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
In laymen's terms:
WE THE PEOPLE, I'll say it again, WE THE PEOPLE are almost always the first responders to tragedies and accidents. Therefor it would seem to be in a law abiding citizens best interest to utilize the very best tool for self defense as it is clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the firearm. That's right owning a firearm is a civil right, I repeat a civil right just like the freedom of speech.
- 01-23-13, 04:31 PM #10
Not everyone here is in America, and most other countries have much stricter gun laws.
Whether stricter gun laws is better or not, many people have never seen guns (let alone used one), and usually don't consider them a viable means of self defence.
I could pull up a bunch of evidence how gun control proves to work in other countries, but I'll just say one thing: Many people just don't like guns; and can possibly consider more extreme gun discussion to be as offensive as, say, bomb making.
- 01-23-13, 06:56 PM #11
I also doubt your abilities to enlighten me grasshopper.
- 01-23-13, 07:32 PM #12
Referring to the closed thread, moderators routinely close duplicate threads to promote a joined-up debate. Duplicates can happen for a variety of reasons ranging from impatient members who can't find their first attempt, to double taps on the Submit button or other technical glitches. When we get double posted threads left open we usually get a barrage of complaints from members who are sure they posted and their contribution got deleted. Of course it's almost always still there in the other version of the thread!
Now about the site's policy on guns - the focus of the site is smartphones, mainly BlackBerry smartphones, so discussion of guns, dogs, cars, and most other non-phone topics belongs here in the Off-topic forum. We also try to maintain a "polite" discussion, so exercise restraint in areas like party/national politics (I see you got that in the part I didn't quote) and religious issues where they may cause friction, and avoid "hatred" posts likely to cause a hostile response from others. A little common sense from the members involved usually means the discussion will remain level headed and be allowed to continue.
- 01-24-13, 02:44 AM #13
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
M Kloos. (2007, March 23). Why the Gun is Civilization. Retrieved from WordPress.com
Last edited by mrrsquared79; 01-24-13 at 02:53 AM. Reason: Formatting
- 01-24-13, 03:15 AM #14
Re: Is CrackBerry anti-gun?
Wow. I truly have no words for how insane that reads to a non American.
I question the logic of a society that puts the right to bear arms over the right to universal health care. I also have a problem when Americans try to bring them to my country. The stories I've heard from border patrol working relatives makes my stomach sick. Living between two US/Canada bridges makes for some terrifying stories.
And that's all I will say because if I really say what I think of the gun culture and the nra my *** will be banned.
I had to get the red SGS3...garnet is my birthstone! Excuses sent via Tapatalk 2
- 01-24-13, 09:42 AM #15
"In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some."
In a civilised society, persuasion is not necessary, that is only necessary in totalitarian society devoid of the nuances, complexities and diversity. Think I would not be happy living in your neurotic and paranoid petty world but to each their own. Good luck with your empire.
- CrackBerry User
01-24-13, 07:00 PM #19
- 77 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
what the **** is this bull**** with people thinking guns is an American only issue. Guns are EVERYWHERE, and rightly so. They are tools and toys and sporting goods in most modern countries on earth. The second amendment is an. American issue, butnot guns. I am Canadian and I love shooting. I rarely hunt, but I and literally millions of Canadians like me own guns that will never kill any living thing. We are stuck with laws passed by brain-dead knee **** liberal politicians that say we may never fire our black plastic guns anywhere but on approved ranges. Why? Because the black plastic makes liberals pee their pants in fear for some reason. I could say a lot more, but there's not really any point. You just can't fix stupid.
- 01-24-13, 08:22 PM #22
- 01-24-13, 11:21 PM #24
Honestly, what's the point of arguing?
We're very unlikely going to see eye to eye at all; and I believe if you were to pick apart each other's society you would just come to the conclusion that in order for it to conform to what you think is correct you'd have to tear it all down and start from scratch.
- 01-24-13, 11:34 PM #25
- By DzNutz in forum Site Feedback & HelpReplies: 21Last Post: 07-03-11, 04:15 PM
- By Snarfler in forum Site Feedback & HelpReplies: 4Last Post: 10-29-09, 10:19 PM
- By sjirgens in forum BlackBerry StormReplies: 22Last Post: 04-07-09, 06:08 PM
- By ProudTSUalum in forum General BlackBerry DiscussionReplies: 53Last Post: 01-07-09, 11:12 AM
- By sito in forum Site Feedback & HelpReplies: 4Last Post: 11-27-08, 04:51 PM