"Kill-or-be-killed" Self-Defense Guru Banned from U.K.

[Tom_Wescott]

Guns

It's funny this is being discussed, because in the last week, in the state I live in, the law was changed and now 'Open Carry' is legal here, which means anyone who has a gun license and takes a safety course is allowed to carry a fire arm open in public. Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[TomTomKent]

I will answer your post in detail, when you answer mine. I have asked you repeatedly, how do you justify your "belief" in human rights, when your very existence violates the rights of millions on a daily basis.

This is not a tongue in the cheek or rhetorical question.

The existence that you choose to lead violates the human rights of millions so that you may have the "rights" and "comforts" you feel entitled to. How do you square your choices with your ideals?

I really want to know.

By promoting the extension of those rights to all.

If I did not recognise human rights as fundamental I could hardly support organisations like Fair Trade, or Unions that work to change the status quo.

Your way of life no doubt causes the same impingements and is reliant on the same free market. I however do not assume you like this, or enjoy it. Yet it remains so. Is there any difference if the rights being abused are "fundamental", "innate" or "human"?

The first step to bringing about a change of culture is recognising what is wrong. Distinguishing between recognising the ideal and expecting it happen in a puff of smoke iskey. I am sure a slave on a cotton field and a jew suffering a pogrom were keenly aware ofrights they were denied.

So apply the same measure to your own statements, let them stand or fall by the same standard: How can you believe in innate rights when they continue to be denied around the world? If your way of life impeaches the rights of others indirectly?

[Ally]

By promoting the extension of those rights to all.
If I did not recognise human rights as fundamental I could hardly support organisations like Fair Trade, or Unions that work to change the status quo.

Ahh I see. So you don't have to LIVE what you profess to believe, a cash donation is sufficient, in your mind, to practice what you preach.

Interesting.

Your way of life no doubt causes the same impingements and is reliant on the same free market. I however do not assume you like this, or enjoy it. Yet it remains so. Is there any difference if the rights being abused are "fundamental", "innate" or "human"?

If you had actually read what I wrote, which I am begining to doubt, you would see that I my every "right" is one that I personally believe I am obligated to defend. No one can enslave me but that I allow myself to be enslaved, I don't have the right NOT to be enslaved, I have the right to defend myself FROM enslavement. There is a fundamental difference.

I don't have the right to be fed. I have the right to go out and feed myself. If I can't do that, I don't meet the evolutionary standards for survival.

So apply the same measure to your own statements, let them stand or fall by the same standard: How can you believe in innate rights when they continue to be denied around the world? If your way of life impeaches the rights of others indirectly?

No one can deny you rights. They don't exist. I've already said I don't believe in them as you continue to profess them.

I have already said that I know my life impeaches on others. They allow themselves to be impeached upon. They have not been "denied" rights (again, using your concept, not my own). They have failed to fight for them or failed to win them. The world is not obligated to hand you a cushy life on a silver platter.

You are the one who is not living by what you profess to believe in. I am living exactly as I believe. That some are on top, and must be, and some are on the bottom, and eventually, it will be my society that falls.

Now I'll post my reply to your other post.

[Ally]

Is the alternative to believe all life has the same rights as us? Does this mean they should be afforded the same treatment? To an extent perhaps, you may believe if I were to encroach on the territory of a wild animal it has the right to defend against the percieved threat. The absurdity is how we react. I do not believe for a second anybody in these forums would allow their friends or loved oned to be mawled by tigers or eaten by sharks defending their young on the principle that it is the inate right of the animal.

I absolutely believe if you encroach on the territory of a wild animal, it should have the right to defend itself. It bugs me tremendously when people who go hiking in yellowstone, get mauled by a bear and then blame the bear. Which is not to say that I would lie there passively and not attempt to defend myself anymore than a criminal entering my house is likely to just roll over and go, okay, my bad, I'm in the wrong, go ahead and kill me. But I do not deny that I am the one in the wrong there. Self-defense/fear instinct is primary in all of us, and if I or my mate were attacked by the bear, and the bear won, I would not want the bear hunted down and punished, any more than I would want a homeowner to be punished for defending his territory.

On the one hand you could apply the same right of the animal to defend your young from a threat. But on the other hand you would, quite rightfully expect those around you to react differently. Were an intruder to stray into your home, and force your hand to defending yourself you would, rightly, find it hard to concede the intruders family were in their rights, or fulfilling a duty to join the fray and kill you first.

Was it a family gang of thieves? Why would their family be there? But yes, you keep using the word rights when it does not apply. IF a group of thieves break into my house, and I start killing them, I imagine their INSTINCT is going to be to try and kill me first. It has nothing to do with RIGHT. It's what is going to happen. It is logic.

And of course, it is that vaunted sentience that allows them to know that they are in the WRONG and in that instance I have more RIGHT to kill them, than they have to kill me, but that doesn't mean they are going to roll over and die peacefully.

You would not offer them same entitlement in this situation as you would expect when dealing with an animal.

The difference being, they are in MY TERRITORITY. So it is not about granting them the same entitlement as I would the animal, it is about granting them the same entitlement I would grant myself if confronted by a wild animal.

But here is the main difference: They know what they are doing is wrong. They know, beyond question, when they break into my house, that they are intentionally and purposefully entering my home to do me harm and take my possessions. When I stroll into the bears territority, I have no such intentions. My transgression was innocent. I would not know I was entering territory and I would not be entering it to harm or endanger the bear.

They make their mistake with full knowledge and intent to do harm. I do not. Therefore, NO, they don't get the same leeway as I do. It is not purely about the act. It is about the intent. You seem to believe that sentience grants you greater rights. I disagree.

In my opinion, sentience grants you solely greater responsibilities.

Were the shoe on the other foot, were it your misguided friend, sibling, child, whatever, breaking into somebodies home. I know that will probably never happen, I know the people who come here are unlikely to be criminals and doubt they allow their family to be either, but purely hypothetically... one of your loved ones is a housebreaker, or syphons fuel from my farm, or starts a fight. They put me in danger. You would accept my right to killthem with out question of course? You agree it was their own fault? Or at the very least concede the fault is not mine?

I would absolutely concede you that right. If my loved one were dumb enough to break into someone's house, not only would I expect you to kill them, I'd hope you would. I have no interest in having dirtbags polluting up the family tree. Dead, that branch can be pruned, alive they just make the whole thing rotten.

But what if there were means to hand for me to defend myself with out lethal force? If I could have set the dogs on them, grabbed the taser not the shotgun. You would still accept my actions?

Your actions inside your own home are not for me to question. If anyone I loved were stupid enough to break into your house, I have absolutely no right to question what you do. It is your house, and they have no "right" to be there, therefore they have no rights within it.

My BF and I had a conversation about this when we were teenagers. We both agreed on basic scenarios. For example, say some guy raped her, and he got away and the law wouldn't prosecute him. If she hunted him down and killed him, I'd totally support her, maybe even lie (which I rarely, if ever do) to provide her with an alibi. If however, she just got mad at her boyfriend and killed him, and came to me for help, I'd turn her dumb butt into the cops. One is justifiable, one is not. When someone violates you, through theft, rape, whatever, as far as I am concerned, they lose all protection and rights. So if my child violates you, or your home, they lose all rights. The end. It doesn't matter that I love them. My feelings are irrelevant. You talk about rights, but it appears you believe a particular emotion is sufficient to override the rights of others. My love is irrelevant to your individual rights. Why precisely should my feeling override your innate right to protect yourself from harm??

But key here, would you expect the right to defend your kid from my lethal defence?

I have no idea how this would even be possible. I would not be defending my kid from your defense because I would not be there??

[TomTomKent]

Ahh I see. So you don't have to LIVE what you profess to believe, a cash donation is sufficient, in your mind, to practice what you preach.

Interesting.

.

And wrong.

I didn't state I gave "cash donations" to either. I volunteer for a union, and support fair trade goods so I buy as few as possible from those that rely on unethical methods. I support organisations working to change the situation.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ally's scenario reminds me of that video nasty of the guy waiting at the airport and he turns around and shoots this guy being led through by police. The guy dies on the spot. The dead guy was a child molester who kidnapped the other guy's boy and took him out of state for days, raping him repeatedly. Was it cold blooded murder? Absolutely. Did the guy go to prison? No way, because he was hailed a hero. Is he a danger to society? Absolutely, if society ever screws with his kid. Otherwise, no way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[TomTomKent]

No one can deny you rights. They don't exist. I've already said I don't believe in them as you continue to profess them.

I have already said that I know my life impeaches on others. They allow themselves to be impeached upon. They have not been "denied" rights (again, using your concept, not my own). They have failed to fight for them or failed to win them.

Sorry, disagree here absolutely 100%.

Of course human rights exist. I don't blame those killed through genocide for not fighting hard enough top protect them. I don't pretend the woman who is raped was "asking for it" because of the clothes she was wearing. I don't happen to think Abraham Lincoln shouldn't have bothered to get out of bed because all his shirts were cotton and dang it, if slavery was a big deal people should have tried harder to defend their right not to be enslaved.

I even think it is odd you would retain the "right" to fight against being treated in a way you know to be unethical. To me it appears you have the right by default, and would be fighting to retain it.

[Cogidubnus]

Amazinglyenough if you were in prison you could reasonably expect access to a basic quality of life, including shoes, or food, but a gun?

As a non-pampered and hard-working member of the British public, I'm fed up to the back teeth with hearing about these alleged human rights - there aren't very many...these are, for the most part, privileges which you have to earn...My personal belief is if your're in prison you've forfeited many of your privileges and should get only the minimum necessary to survive...this doesn't include either clothing, shoes or food (other than bread and water) unless you labour to earn them...if this means you sleep six to a cell with no TV, no exercise, no luxuries...tough...it means you're a non-productive idle git!

I didn't state I gave "cash donations" to either. I volunteer for a union, and support fair trade goods so I buy as few as possible from those that rely on unethical methods. I support organisations working to change the situation.

So - fair trade goods...great...so how do you stand on the banana trade? Be careful..it IS a tricky issue...whp's idea of fair?...and unethical methods...again who decides? You don't - you've copped out - You support organisations - how? By talking them up? By putting money in a box for them? By deduction from salary? Bet you don't get out on the streets and soil your hands for them (and don't ask..Many years ago in my idealistic youth I gave up a good job and worked as a welfare worker for a local charity, wiping old people's arses and cleaning up alkies vomit...and trying to turn the nasty criminal underclass from council estates into decent beings...have you? I have, and can tell you now...in the end, it doesn't work...they just smile and rip you off...

I don't mean we shouldn't help the aged, the infirm or the genuinely unfortunate...there have to be safety nets...this is what humanity (as opposed to animal life) is all about...but "rights" for criminals? Forget it...

Dave

[Ally]

Sorry, disagree here absolutely 100%.

Of course human rights exist.

Really? Prove it. Prove human rights "exist".

And you buy fair trade? What co-op did the computer you are typing your human rights treatise come from. The fact is, you believe in human rights only to the point that they don't interfere with your needs and desires. When it is a choice between purchasing what you want, vs. buying something you know violates human rights, I guarantee you fall on teh side of buying what you want, otherwise you would not have that computer, or a cel phone or a TV.

I even think it is odd you would retain the "right" to fight against being treated in a way you know to be unethical. To me it appears you have the right by default, and would be fighting to retain it.

Oh really? I have the right to fight against being treated unethically, say raped, but I only have the right, according to your last several dozen posts, to act within a specific set of parameters that YOU deem acceptable. So how can you actually say that you believe I have the right by default, when you attempt to impose limits and restrictions and caveats upon my "right"?

[Chris Scott]

Of course human rights do not exist in the sense of having an external, objective reality.
They only exist to the extent that they are a human invention, a theoretical construct and. as such, anyone is free to believe in them, or not.
The only thing I find irksome about some of the proponents and champions of human rights is the unquestioning assumption that everyone must agree with them as if by divine right. I don't.
An acquaintance of mine and I were discussing immigration and asylum. He said that anyone fleeing persecution had the automatic right to come to the UK and be granted asylum and support. I said I didn't agree. He looked at me completely uncomprehending and simply said "But you must." He seemed incapable of understanding that someone could disagree with him and that these "rights" he so cherishes were not universally accepted as inalienable but are a human invention and, as such, liable to change and, on occasion, scrapping.
Those of a like mind - as my acquaintance - can be beset by a kind of arrogance that their views are self evident and need no justification. I have frequently met the attitude that if I don't agree with their liberal views it means I have not understood them. I find that patronising. I simply reply: "I understand your views and your arguments completely. I just don't agree with them." Again they seem incapable of understanding the concept of disagreement.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris. You mean to say you don't like to see your country, which you love, ruined and handed over to a bunch of people who couldn't cut it in their own land and just want to use it but have no stake in its history or future? How dare you think that way! You're every kind of phobe and ist there is! You shouldn't be allowed by law to think that way! Persecute you!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Hi Chris,

I agree with you on the vast majority of what you say. However, on the issue of immigration, you as an Englishman have a much firmer stance than we do, since we as Americans are basically immigrants who couldn't hack it in our own country, fled to another and basically usurped it without regard for its history or inhabitants.

Americans, who bleat about closing the borders are viewed as fairly hypocritical. If only the Natives had done that when we arrived... We do not have a thousand years of history to stand on. Our own immigration was relatively recent in the pages of history, so we have much less of a case to be made for "history and tradition". Whose tradition anyway? The chinese who came over here and built our railroads? The black tradition when we brought them over by force? The polish history? The irish history? The catholic? The protestant?

This country was not built by a single race or a single ethnicity or a single unifying presence. And we are, all of us, immigrants to it.

[Tom_Wescott]

LOL. Not quite, Ally. The natives DID try to close the borders, they just didn't have the smarts and weaponry to succeed. It's convenient how Americans have chosen to forget all the terrible things the Indians did to white people over the course of hundreds of years, because of this notion that the white man took their land. However, when you then say that the white man built America, you're corrected and told 'no, the white man played only a small part! It was ALL races that built America!' "Oh, so all races share equally in this alleged stealing of land?" "Err...no, that was just the white man. It would be racist to blame any race other than the whites for the bad stuff." "Oh, okay. And it would be racist to give credit for the good stuff to the whites?" "Absolutely! The credit for all the good stuff must be doled out all around, with the least amount going to the whites."

This underdog mentality does not become you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[TomTomKent]

Chris: I haven't claimed my views are self evident. If I thought they were I can't say I wouldhave been so interested in the views of others.

Ally: No I doubt everything I own is ethically sourced. But that is the reason to advocate change for the better. Should people not have supported Martin Luther King because there were nations where segregation existed? Should Lincoln have shut up because heworecotton shirts? Perhaps your founding fathers should not have built a nation built on principles they felt were true of all men while denying them to half the people in their own nation, or indeed while knowing of nations where serfdom still existed.

As to americas percieved open door attitude to immigration, it is worth remembering that it is a door that was closed surprisingly early, or at the very least tried to be closed. From both sides. The mexicans took a pretty strong stance against American immigrants usurping their territory and declaring an indipendant state, with battles like the Alamo (not that it went all that well in the Long run for the Mexicans).

[Chris Scott]

Hi Ally
You say that I, as an Englishman, have a firmer stance on immigration. That, whilst true, is sadly of no effect whilst successive UK Governments take the opposite stance.
We are still dealing with the disastrous legacy of the Labour governments of Blair and Brown and not only with their "party today, pay tomorrow" economic policies. Their virtual open door immigration and asylum policies have been an unmitigated disaster with which we are still having to deal. Because of our over generous policies on immigration and asylum, because of the ridiculously protracted appeals procedures (Abu Qatada has been playing the system at public expense for over decade), because it is now widely known here and abroad that ANY incomer, legal or not, will be materially provided for via the benefits system, because we are saddled with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, then the present system is riddled with abuse for two main reasons:-
1) Because of the widely known benefits support for all incomers, the UK is seen as the country of choice within Europe. Immigrants will come into Europe via Italy, for example, then work their work up through that country, through France and wait at Calais to get to the UK via the cross channel links. They openly acknowledge in interview that they are only interested in getting to Britain. International agreements regarding asylum say that if a person flees their own country, they should seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. So how can an Afghan, a Kurd, a Kosovan, a Somali etc. be claiming asylum in the UK when they must have passed through stable and safe countries to get here. To me this shows that a large number of these claimants must be economic migrants and not bona fide asylum seekers and that the UK system is widely seen as open to abuse.
2) The complexity and protracted nature of the UK system means there are many bogus grounds on which entry can be sought. Visiting the UK to study, coming to join a partner, etc. all provide supposedly legitimate grounds for entry and then the incomer simply disappears into the black economy.
Tony Blair once estimated that there were 250,000 illegal immigrants in the UK at the time. On the basis that such a figure, by its very nature can only ever be a rough estimate, and also the source - I would trust very little that Tony Blair said - I would venture to say that the REAL figure is not only higher but in all probability VERY much higher.
Immigration is consistently placed at the top or near the top of concerns of the British electorate and the failure of successive governments of various political persuasions to grasp the nettle will mean that when the issue is finally dealt with - and it will have to be eventually - the task will be more difficult and the solution more draconian.