Is It Rational to Get Called a Liberal for Opposing Guns in Church?
Offline Personally, I don't identify with liberalism, but I was having a discussion over gun rights with some people today.
They called me liberal because I don't believe guns should be allowed in Church, schools, or media buildings. These are the hubs of information flow in society, and people need to be able to peacefully settle their differences without concern of getting shot over critical disagreements. That is people are supposed to learn how to use their words. Discourse ethics come before power analytics.
They called me liberal because a madman could enter a Church, school, or media building anyway, and shoot people up. People should have the right to defend themselves.
I said that if someone's going to shoot you, then you're dead anyway.
They said that if people exist in groups, the odds of any individual person getting shot go down, and people can neutralize the attacker.
I said that degrades the quality of personhood as if people's rights are subject to the quantity of others around them. The only thing that should matter is if the first person gets shot. All for one, one for all. Fellow people shouldn't have the right to learn from the first victim's suffering. They should be committed to their organization's ideas such that the organization doesn't provoke shooters into shooting its members in the first place.
They said you can't educate or preach to everyone. Different people believe in different ideas. I was being intolerant of cultural relativism. Then, they said I must have supported the Holocaust where people who had different ideas were thrown in ovens. They also appealed to al Qaeda in saying some people just have radically different ideas.
Ignoring the problems of being accused of liberalism here, I said there's a difference between rational ideas and emotional opinions. Just because people don't like each other doesn't mean they'll disrespect each other. The value of Church, schools, and media is to deal with problematic thinking so people don't runamuck as madmen in the first place. If people aren't willing to refine dogma, curriculum, and news in society to make sure people think rationally, then they're lazy.
At this point, they just called me brainwashed and walked away, saying that's not the role of Church, schools, and media.
- Login to post comments
What is wrong with churches, schools and media buildings deciding for themselves whether or not they want guns on their property?
The JROTC used to have marksmanship programs in many schools using *gasp* real rifles. Around the time of Columbine there was a lot of pressure put on them and they switched over to using air rifles. Now, there are only a handful of schools that offer even that. As far as I know, a JROTC rifle has never been used in a school shooting and obviously, they still happen despite the ban.
I would be surprised if most major media buildings do not have armed security officers on the premises.
And churches. Who cares if a church wants to allow their members to carry guns? What business is it of yours?
And yes, when someone is carrying concealed in the rare situation of some wacko going on a killing spree it tends to prevent it. That is why you never heard of the "New Life Church" massacre in Colorado Springs, because the sob ran into an armed woman before he could kill 20-30 people.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/10/colorado-church-gunman-had-grudge-against-christian-group-cops-say/
Or why you have never heard of the Parker Middle School Dance Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Middle_School_dance_shooting
Or the Pearl High School Shooting which only resulted in two deaths. Too bad the assistant principal had to run to his car, more suffering could have been avoided if his .45 was on him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
I can do this all day, it is just that mass shootings that are prevented before the body count gets to be a dozen just isn't as sensational a news story as the successful ones. Stupid gun nuts ruining all the media's fun.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
After much listening of right wing lunatics describe everything they oppose as liberal, I've concluded there's no such thing as an American liberal. Don't take it too hard.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I get what you're saying.
My point is that if people are shooting in a place of information flows, those flows of information clearly aren't reliable. Churches, schools, and media organizations should be exercising due diligence to prevent shootings in the first place. Tolerating guns is a cop out for refusing to prevent violence.
They were neocons/libertarians. I'm not sure they even understand what "right-wing" really means.
Sure, if we can prevent a shooting (or bombing for that matter) we should do so and for the most part we do, it isn't like shootings in schools and churches are common. 99.999% of people who go to school or church will never witness a shooting there in their entire lives. Do you have any ideas that would prevent all mass shootings?
You are aware that neocons and libertarians rarely get along? I assume it was the neocon accusing you of being liberal, all you had to do was bring up the topic of drugs, immigration, gay marriage or war and the neocon would be distracted calling the libertarian liberal.
Honestly, I'm not really sure what "right wing" means. I am usually called right wing when among democrats and "left wing" among those who vote republican- but nobody has ever accused me of being centrist/moderate. The phrases tend to be used as more of a pejorative to define everyone who doesn't agree with you, rather than some kind of identifiable consistent political philosophy.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
This is how I see the right and left.
Typical right wing philosophies include corporate deregulation and freedom, regulation of drugs, abstinence, complete religious freedom, gun freedom, and 'traditional' marriage. More likely to be a bigoted ass, but not guaranteed.
Typical left wing philosophies include corporate regulation, social freedom and spending, decriminalisation of drugs, birth control, seperation of church and state, gun restriction/regulation and freedom of marriage partner choice. More likely to be a pussy, though not guaranteed.
I've gathered this through my experiences in reading/watching people identify issues as leaning right or left. But as with the parties themselves, these are subject to change at any time.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Really? Again you make this a choice thing.
Ok do you really think guns are ok everywhere no matter what? You cannot tell me as violent, for example soccer fans worldwide can get, it would be wise for the stadium owners to say " fuck it, lets add weapons, worship of a sport, and booze with emotional fervor" because we wouldn't want to alienate our gun owning fans.
You might make a case more for private institutions such as churches. Having attended for a while a UU church, I can tell you if they allowed guns I WOULD NOT attend.
But you are BAT SHIT INSANE that that same "allow guns on public property no matter what" be it a court room or public school should be a choice issue.
Seriously you fucking "rights" crap if we went with it would be painfully and absurdly simple. Fuck anyone who objects to it, and only care about the rights of people who own guns. The problem with this mentality is that you mistake REGULATION which is based on consent, with the stupid fallacy of an all out ban?
Please tell me, where is the line? I am sure you would simply ban all TSA metal detectors because if every passenger had a gun no one would attempt to hijack the plane. PLEASE tell me you are not that fucking stupid as to argue for that kind of absolute.
You still miss the concept of case by case. Everything to you is " it is constitutional when I win and get what I want, but oppression when I lose"
I am quite sure if you tried this bullshit with the NEWTON victims or any domestic murder victim or gang violence victim for most of them, this crappy bullshit argument wont wash.
The truth is that the NRA, who the vast majority of members, not the corporate goons who own the NRA leadership, but the average public WANT BETTER REGULATION.
We have a flooded market where guns are handed out like Skittles and sold like Skittles. And you think the issue is "Choice"? This sound exactly like the same "free will" bullshit god fans sell.
The truth is IT IS NOT ABOUT RIGHTS OR CHOICE. The truth is we have an industry that has a monopoly on politics and uses the NRA to protect it so it can maintain it's profits. If the manufacturers truly cared about problem solving they wouldn't sell you the bullshit you tried to hide behind just now.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yeah, I am like that. I prefer to let people choose for themselves rather than force them to do what I want. What can I say? I'm an asshole.
I didn't say "everywhere no matter what" I said that the people who own the property should make that choice. If the owners of a soccer stadium don't want guns, they can ban them from their stadium. If another team doesn't think it is a problem, they can allow guns. Just like right now a stadium can decide whether or not to search fans for knives. Many movie theaters ban guns, some do not. (The one in Aurora did, the one I go to does not.) I have no problem with the owners of a theater deciding which way they want to go.
That is what we were talking about. Private institutions, well and schools which I generally consider local institutions.
I doubt any court room will ever allow guns and I am fine with that. For schools, I said we should let them choose. That means the people on the local school board, I don't see how it is any of my or your business what a local school board decides outside of our localities.
I think that airline security should be privatized and airlines should be able to decide for themselves what their rules are regarding weapons. I once *gasp* carried a gun in my carry on luggage on a plane in Alaska (pre 9/11). It makes a lot of sense when 99% of your customers are hunters to allow them to carry their guns on the plane. If you are an airline doing commuter routes for business people between major cities it probably makes sense to ban them. The problem with the government is it imposes one size fits all policies, which means in a lot of cases their policies don't make sense.
I am the one arguing that each case should make a decision on their own. How is it I am missing the concept of case by case? It is the basis of my entire argument "let them decide".
I'm not hiding anywhere. Just making those evil gun companies more profitable because I love guns and I love profits, so profitable gun companies is awesome.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
God is a Bullet. http://www.youtube/watch?v=_jevyISot3I
Was trying to link to a music vid by Concrete Blonde called "God Is A Bullet" Meh
There are... but very very few!
Better yet.. why is it important that guns are allowed or disallowed in church to begin with?
i'm one. I stand for complete nationalization of all heavy industry and transportational infrastructure, elimination of the notion of private property, immediate confiscation of bourgeois assets, revolutionary tribunals (bush & co. would be up against the wall, but obama & co. wouldn't fare much better), exportation of proletarian revolution, etc., etc.
as for bush (all of the older male bushes, as a matter of fact, including senior), cheney, condoleeza rice, rumsfeld, etc., i would go to whatever revolutionary authority is in charge and beg, on my knees if necessary, to be the one who personally sees revolutionary justice done on one or all of that nest of vipers. ditto with kissinger. mitch mcconnell, and all the "pundits" like coulter, o'reilly, and beck.
i don't consider myself liberal, though. liberals are pussies.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
QFT
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.