Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
dg93

NC grandfather fires back at trio in attempted rape of teen granddaughter

Recommended Posts

Maes said:

whiny leftist liberal gun control bullshit we get everytime.

Deep down, most of us are sensitive new-age guys who wish for nothing more than peace on Earth, good will to all men and for Greece to detach from Europe and drift south to join Libya. :P

Share this post


Link to post
GreyGhost said:

Deep down, most of us are sensitive new-age guys who wish for nothing more than peace on Earth, good will to all men and for Greece to detach from Europe and drift south to join Libya. :P


my reaction while reading this ; (o_o) (0_0) (°_°)

Share this post


Link to post
GreyGhost said:

Deep down, most of us are sensitive new-age guys who wish for nothing more than peace on Earth, good will to all men and for Greece to detach from Europe and drift south to join Libya. :P

I have no problem stating that I am a sensitive guy, and I wish for peace on Earth, and good will to all men. I also believe in the right to protect yourself, and your loved-ones. And, I believe that everyone is created equal, but from that point, your choices, especially after you turn 18, are your responsibility.

I believe that you have certain God-given rights as a human, and you have rights under the law. These laws are (supposed to be) determined to allow peaceful coexistence with you and society. And, I believe, if you choose to take actions that would interfere with my rights, I should be able to prevent you from doing so.

The guns are not the problem, human nature is the problem. Some people feel justified in breaking in to people's homes, and raping people. How they got that way is their responsibility, mental illness or not. The grandfather was probably too old to defend himself with his fists. The gun allows him to "level the playing field", and be a foreboding as the rapists.

And, he probably is also sensitive, and he probably wants peace on Earth, and loves puppies and bunnies, and is a great guy.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh sure, it's obvious when someone breaks into your home intending to rape and/or murder you and your family. But what if an old man with Alzheimer's wanders into your yard, or a young woman comes to your door because she's having car trouble, or you get into an argument over cell phone use in a movie theater and you decide that because you have a right to own and use a gun, you have a right to use it in that situation? All three scenarios actually happened, FYI. I certainly have no qualms with the notion of using a gun to defend yourself. But we've gotten to the point as a society where people feel so secure in that right that they reach for the gun even when it's uncalled for and completely inappropriate. In each of those scenarios, I'm positive the guy who grabbed the gun thought he'd be heralded as a hero for stopping these horrible people in their tracks - because they're so completely sure that everyone is out to get them, that there are rampaging bands of criminals everywhere just looking for a target. That's why I bring up the mental illness - not to say the man shouldn't have used a gun in this particular situation, but to point out how astonishingly uncommon this kind of situation really is.

I'm not saying, "Mental illness gives them a free pass to do whatever they want," I'm saying, "This kind of thing almost never happens, despite portrayal in the media like this kind of thing happens all the time, there are rampages gangs out there everywhere, and they're out to get you so you need to be scared of everyone." Because it's this irrational fear that leads people to blow away innocent people in innocuous situations, because they've been so conditioned by fear through the media and what have you to believe that everyone out there is out to get them.

Share this post


Link to post
geekmarine said:

Oh sure, it's obvious when someone breaks into your home intending to rape and/or murder you and your family. But what if an old man with Alzheimer's wanders into your yard, or a young woman comes to your door because she's having car trouble, or you get into an argument over cell phone use in a movie theater and you decide that because you have a right to own and use a gun, you have a right to use it in that situation? All three scenarios actually happened, FYI. I certainly have no qualms with the notion of using a gun to defend yourself. But we've gotten to the point as a society where people feel so secure in that right that they reach for the gun even when it's uncalled for and completely inappropriate. In each of those scenarios, I'm positive the guy who grabbed the gun thought he'd be heralded as a hero for stopping these horrible people in their tracks - because they're so completely sure that everyone is out to get them, that there are rampaging bands of criminals everywhere just looking for a target. That's why I bring up the mental illness - not to say the man shouldn't have used a gun in this particular situation, but to point out how astonishingly uncommon this kind of situation really is.

I'm not saying, "Mental illness gives them a free pass to do whatever they want," I'm saying, "This kind of thing almost never happens, despite portrayal in the media like this kind of thing happens all the time, there are rampages gangs out there everywhere, and they're out to get you so you need to be scared of everyone." Because it's this irrational fear that leads people to blow away innocent people in innocuous situations, because they've been so conditioned by fear through the media and what have you to believe that everyone out there is out to get them.

Fear is typically always irrational. The fear emotion comes first, by design I think, to allow you to act before you've had time to completely assess the situation.

Having said that, if I shoot someone in the theater over an argument, I am wrong - I become the person breaking into homes - I become the bad guy. However, if, in the theater, I feel that my life is being threatened, that's a different story. And, since we are now discussing the more vague aspects - again, in the theater, if there's time, I could always show that I am armed, to deter an attack, if there's time.

But, more specifically, my point was that, if someone is clearly threatening me, they are already doing their best to provoke a response in me. And, if they do not know what I am capable of, in terms of defending myself, I would suggest that there may be a mental defect involved, of some sort, just on those grounds. I consider my life to be pretty valuable to me, so I take a threat very seriously, and I do not know what their capabilities are, either. This is what justifies possibly lethal force. It is not just irrational fear - it is a very rational realization that, if I do not act fast, I may have to endure a force of an unknown amount. The fact that someone would put someone else in such a situation is telling.

All other rationales aside, the fact that you are not given enough time to make a rational decision, in my book, justifies using whatever means necessary to stop that threat. Even in the less-obvious case: Someone walks towards you quickly, and says "I'm gonna f you up.". To me, that justifies using whatever force keeps you safe. I don't know what "f you up" really means to that person, I don't have time to guess, and I'm not particularly motivated to guess. If I can stop that threat, I should. I don't want to be "f-ed up." Why should I risk injury by taking valuable time to choose a less-lethal shot, that might allow my attacker to grab the gun and kill me? How does that make any sense? Why do I owe this deranged individual any extra consideration. To me, that is unjustified.

We're not talking about allowing anger, or fear, to cause us to steal someone's life. We are talking specifically about stopping an immediate grave threat, in the most reliable way possible.

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said, I have no problem using force in a legitimate case of self-defense. I just get worried, though, because more and more people seem to be crossing over into using force even though it is not a legitimate case of self-defense, because they allow their fears to overwhelm them and make those decisions from fear. If you're prepared to use force in a situation for which force is justified, you better be damn well ready to own up to the consequences if you make a bad call. That's not me saying you should never use force - but if you're unwilling to own up to the consequences of potentially making a mistake, you have no business making that decision in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to change the topic - I know I'm going back a few pages, but I've seen Maes being called a right-winger, and others being called left-wingers and whatever - it just annoys me.

the_miano said:

That is one of my biggest reasons why I highly dislike left wing liberals. Their fucking victim mentality is what pisses me off.

But, does this mean you identify with the right wing? Because I personally am on my own little isolated island when it comes to political beliefs. I think the right wingers are money-obsessed, war obsessed retards - Look at Bush, holy hell. The left-wingers are a bunch of bleeding hearts, afraid to take action and man up when it's needed.

I think guns should be regulated - but like Kontra said, if some piece of shit busts into your home, the chances are they need to be put down. Then again, the same thugs that break into the homes now have easier access to the guns that the innocent people need to protect themselves.. It's a vicious cycle and the soultion is definitely not easy to come to.

Share this post


Link to post
Doomkid said:

Sorry to change the topic - I know I'm going back a few pages, but I've seen Maes being called a right-winger, and others being called left-wingers and whatever - it just annoys me.


But, does this mean you identify with the right wing? Because I personally am on my own little isolated island when it comes to political beliefs. I think the right wingers are money-obsessed, war obsessed retards - Look at Bush, holy hell. The left-wingers are a bunch of bleeding hearts, afraid to take action and man up when it's needed.



I don't necessarily identify myself with the right wing (mostly authoritarian right) mainly because I don't support:

1) War Mongering and wastefully spending over $460 billion+ on military
2) Militarization of police (Federal/Municipal/Local)
3) The War on Drugs
4) The Death Penalty
5) Government intervention with marriage

I tend to stick to more libertarian ideology of:

1) Constitutional rights
2) Private property rights
3) Free market
4) Limitation of the Federal Power on states (States Rights)

EDIT: In terms of political party, I registered myself as Republican at the age of 18, but now that I'm older I've been rethinking my political stance. I switched over to the Libertarian Party. I've just become annoyed at both the Democrats and Republicans over the past few years. Long story short, I believe they are corrupt (I'm thinking about writing a new blog thread explaining more on why both parties suck, it might take me some time to write though....)

Doomkid said:

I think guns should be regulated - but like Kontra said, if some piece of shit busts into your home, the chances are they need to be put down. Then again, the same thugs that break into the homes now have easier access to the guns that the innocent people need to protect themselves.. It's a vicious cycle and the soultion is definitely not easy to come to.


I agree with you here DK. I believe there should be minimal gun regulations, though I am for the right of self defense and legal gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post

It's funny that I've been called a "cookie-cutter right winger", because most of my past posts would point in the opposite direction. If anything, I've been called a europinko socialist trash a lot, but then again there are major differences between what an American would define as "right" and "left" , and what most Europeans would call "right" and "left". FWIW, political alignments in the USA, from the point of view of most Europeans, seem to start from "Moderate Right" and only go Righter ;-)

Also, "liberal" means completely different things: for Americans it's something similar to what Europeans would call "radical progressive leftism", and is definitively a Left concept. For Europeans, "liberal" only means one thing: neoliberal, supporting "liberal" economic policies, deregulation etc., aka a very typically Right thing.

With that out of the way, since Belial is not American AFAIK, and what triggered his "cookie cutter" liberal leftist pigeonholing me as a right winger, was that I don't unconditionally accept the unrestricted entry of illegal immigrants in Greece (and the EU, people, get over it), and I don't accept the inability/unwillingness to stop them being mislabelled as "tolerance" or "multiculturalism" in order to make it sound more palatable. If that makes me a "fascist" to his eyes (another very variable term), so be it.

Now, leftists just LOVE calling all of their opponent "fascists", though very few of them are actually blackshirt-wearing thugs that go "Sieg Heil!". Most are simply what in Greece we call "Νοικοκυραίοι" (roughly transatable to "respectable family/house people" or "decent people"), and traditionally, the "decent people" had an anticommunist and conservative political attitude. But just embracing some of their points of view, doesn't make you either a full-fledged fascist, nor a bona-fide "decent person".

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Now, leftists just LOVE calling all of their opponent "fascists", though very few of them are actually blackshirt-wearing thugs that go "Sieg Heil!". Most are simply what in Greece we call "Νοικοκυραίοι" (roughly transatable to "respectable family/house people" or "decent people"), and traditionally, the "decent people" had an anticommunist and conservative political attitude. But just embracing some of their points of view, doesn't make you either a full-fledged fascist, nor a bona-fide "decent person".


Fascism is often associated with far right view points of ultra-nationalism and authoritarian governments, though I'm pretty sure that it can be incorporated into left-wing ideology too. It is basically saying, "you must comply to our rules and what we say/do, if you don't you will be in a world of shit." This is seen with both national socialism (e.g. Nazi Germany and Kingdom of Italy) and Communism (e.g. Soviet Union and North Korea). All those countries used military authority to govern their people.

Share this post


Link to post

This is correct, though all "fascist" (in the sense of using authoritarian methods of rule) governments that were not self-identified as Communist or "Socialist", tended to be highly conservative/anti-communist, hence the dichotomy. There hasn't ever been a "fascist centrist" or "fascist moderate right" or "fascist moderate left" government anywhere, at any time in history.

As soon as the authoritarian mode kicked in, it was either full-fledged Communistm or Full-fledged Conservative/Anti-communist, perhaps because fascism really is the point where both extremes touch. It's ironic that both Mussolini and Hitler described their parties as "Socialist" and "Workers'" accordingly, making you think of a leftist ideology...

Sure, there were some "mildly fascist" or "populist fascist" governments (the "milder" they were, the longer they ruled, e.g. Franco's and Oliveira's dictatorships in Spain and Portugal), but while they cut down on most of the (most blatant) repression and even tried to be "people's regimes", there was no mistake on their political alignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

As soon as the authoritarian mode kicked in, it was either full-fledged Communistm or Full-fledged Conservative/Anti-communist, perhaps because fascism really is the point where both extremes touch. It's ironic that both Mussolini and Hitler described their parties as "Socialist" and "Workers'" accordingly, making you think of a leftist ideology...


Hitler's version of "socialism" is quite unique compared to modern day socialism/communism. He pretty much nit picked certain aspects he agreed with of socialist ideology (both economic and social aspects). I've actually read his autobiography Mein Kampf. The strange thing is, originally he was anti-capitalist while at the same time anti-Marxist. He was in support of national welfare, profit sharing to the German middle class. From what I remember in the book, he bashed the Hell out of both right-wing and left-wing politics. He was in favor of gun control (actually total disarmament of the Jewish population), total control of the media, and national heathcare.

Mussolini's socialist Italy was basically a fascist puppet state under Hitler's control. He favored economic socialism and forced Italian citizens to give up their gold to the national banks (I think in effort to stabilize the value of their currency). Both Hitler and Mussolini also did not favor the Roman Catholic Church or religion in general. However, I'm pretty sure Hitler did use religion (I think the Protestant aspects of Christianity) as a method of propaganda.

In my opinion, fascism is a concept of control no matter what economic ideology it is stereotyped to be.

Share this post


Link to post
the_miano said:

Mussolini's socialist Italy was basically a fascist puppet state under Hitler's control. He favored economic socialism and forced Italian citizens to give up their gold to the national banks (I think in effort to stabilize the value of their currency). Both Hitler and Mussolini also did not favor the Roman Catholic Church or religion in general. However, I'm pretty sure Hitler did use religion (I think the Protestant aspects of Christianity) as a method of propaganda.

You may have had a point on Hitler, but this just sounds incredibly mangled and half-informed. Socialist Italy? Heh. Not in favor of the Roman Catholicism or religion in general? That's bullshit, Mussolini actually uprooted anticlericalism (in spite of his personal views) to appease conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
the_miano said:

Mussolini's socialist Italy was basically a fascist puppet state under Hitler's control.


Huh? They only part of Italy that was like that was undeniably the short-lived Salo's Republic, which was essentially the leftovers of Mussolini's state after the Allies pwned him in the south.

But before that, Mussolini was actually appointed PM of Italy (in 1992) way before Hitler even got his infamous appointment as a Chancellor in 1933, and was ol Duce for way longer than Hitler was der Fuehrer.

The relationships of Germany-Italy as Axis "allies" were not simple either, as Mussolini arguably caused more harm than good to his "ally" while he still had the initiative. At some point Hitler turned against Italy just to prevent the Allies from taking it completely, and that's where the "puppet government" really formed. But before that, (sadly), it was all Mussolini's "free" initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
dew said:

Mussolini actually uprooted anticlericalism (in spite of his personal views) to appease conservatives.


I think you may be right about that.

Maes said:

The relationships of Germany-Italy as Axis "allies" were not simple either, as Mussolini arguably caused more harm than good to his "ally" while he still had the initiative. At some point Hitler turned against Italy just to prevent the Allies from taking it completely, and that's where the "puppet government" really formed. But before that, (sadly), it was all Mussolini's "free" initiative.


I've heard that there were tensions between the alliance of Italy and Germany. I'm interested in learning more about it though.

Share this post


Link to post
the_miano said:

I've heard that there were tensions between the alliance of Italy and Germany. I'm interested in learning more about it though.


Those relationships were the ultimate paradox: on the one hand, Mussolini was a sort of "mentor" to Hitler, having assumed power way before him, so they were "natural allies".




Spoiler

The office scene is funnier if you know what came before it: Minister Garbitsch had "meticulously prepared" every detail of Napoloni's entrance: he would have to walk a long hallway to reach Hinkel's office, he would have to face him from a low chair, he would have to look at his bust towering over him etc. in order to feel inferior. See how well that played out ;-)

On the other hand, Hitler (or rather, Germany) wase much more efficient at waging war (or doing anything else, really) than Mussolini and Italy, so much, that the latter had to be bailed out by Hitler a number of times, and even betrayed (the Italian people, though not Mussolini) in order to cease being a liability.

It was kind of like allying yourself with the village;s idiot: sooner or later you'd have to let him go or take him out yourself, because he's such a liability. However, Mussolini at a personal level always was treated as an ally and even helped to escape assassination attempts by partisans. The Italians however, as a people, clearly were not.

Share this post


Link to post
geekmarine said:

Like I said, I have no problem using force in a legitimate case of self-defense. I just get worried, though, because more and more people seem to be crossing over into using force even though it is not a legitimate case of self-defense, because they allow their fears to overwhelm them and make those decisions from fear. If you're prepared to use force in a situation for which force is justified, you better be damn well ready to own up to the consequences if you make a bad call. That's not me saying you should never use force - but if you're unwilling to own up to the consequences of potentially making a mistake, you have no business making that decision in the first place.

Yes, it's called "responsibility". Fully agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Those relationships were the ultimate paradox: on the one hand, Mussolini was a sort of "mentor" to Hitler, having assumed power way before him, so they were "natural allies".

On the other hand, Hitler (or rather, Germany) wase much more efficient at waging war (or doing anything else, really) than Mussolini and Italy, so much, that the latter had to be bailed out by Hitler a number of times, and even betrayed (the Italian people, though not Mussolini) in order to cease being a liability.

It was kind of like allying yourself with the village;s idiot: sooner or later you'd have to let him go or take him out yourself, because he's such a liability. However, Mussolini at a personal level always was treated as an ally and even helped to escape assassination attempts by partisans. The Italians however, as a people, clearly were not.


My grandfather was an Italian soldier during Mussolini's reign. Not by choice though, he was drafted by the government, as were all young men at the time. He had told me another issue with the whole thing was that a lot of Italians, didn't really follow along with the fascist ideology. Moreover, the modern Italian state never really had a military tradition like Germany does. Also, Italians were not as unified due to ultra-regionalism, and tend to be clannish, and less collectivist, than Germans. Further, Italy was never really prepared for the war, and lacked access to an adequate amount of resources since it was late to the scramble for Africa, and other colonial prospects. All of these factors and more contribute to the tenuous war-effort by Italy.


Mussolini in regards to the Italian people in relation to his vision for the country:

"Does not the sculptor sometimes smash his block of marble into fragments because he cannot shape it into the vision he has conceived?"

Share this post


Link to post
the_miano said:

Fascism is often associated with far right view points of ultra-nationalism and authoritarian governments, though I'm pretty sure that it can be incorporated into left-wing ideology too. It is basically saying, "you must comply to our rules and what we say/do, if you don't you will be in a world of shit." This is seen with both national socialism (e.g. Nazi Germany and Kingdom of Italy) and Communism (e.g. Soviet Union and North Korea). All those countries used military authority to govern their people.


That sounds like the SJWs and their war against "sexism" in the game industry.

Share this post


Link to post
doomgargoyle said:

That sounds like the SJWs and their war against "sexism" in the game industry.


Yea, pretty much.

Anyone that doesn't want to see any other way but their's is a fucking asshole in my book. Ideologues to be exact.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×