Moral Obligation to Take Action

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just remember this, there is nothing moral about the law or an aggressive prosecutor. While you can justify your action based on outdated notions of traditional morality of helping others in need, just remember that this is a fervently anti-gun nation and there will be many chomping at the bit to put you behind bars because you used a gun. They won't care about how you morally justified your actions in the seconds before you pulled the trigger.

In most states there is no legal protection for "good samaritans" who try to play hero with a handgun. You have no obligation to anyone but you and your family. Sad but that is the country we live in.
 
KingofAttendance:
Your thoughts on a moral obligation to take action using a firearm should coincide with your thoughts of a moral obligation to take action through taxes; a lot of liberals and conservatives alike don't even think of that.
If you believe in not donating a chunk of your paycheck to the needy, you should also not believe in donating a chunk of your time and/or life to the needy. Otherwise, it's a huge contradiction.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen.

I don't want a chunk of money being taken out of my paycheck for THE GOVERNMENT to decide who and how to help. I have no problem with donating my time and yes even MONEY to people/causes of my choosing. Some "charity work" the government does downright ticks me off. That doesn't mean I don't like to help the needy.

To put it another way... you don't want the government dictating when you MUST use your CCW to protect another person do you? Would you like it if they created laws saying "If you see a person matching X description in danger, you must run to their rescue regardless of possible danger to yourself"?

- It should be an individuals choice who/how/if they give their time/money to.

- It should be an individuals choice who/how/if they risk their lives to protect.

I see no contradiction.
 
So I should buy life insurance to take care of my family when I get killed to save you and you won't even give my family a buck or two - because that is the conservative philosophy?

I think what he's saying is a conservative philosophy and frankly a Christian principal is you are responsible to be good prudent steward and take necessary steps to take care of yourself for foreseeable disaster. Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death. That's just sound and common sense responsible financial planning. Of course in today's society of "cant get enough" people often trade their families future for an extra movie a week or a shiny new car every three years.

On the other hand the democrat/liberal view is if a bread winner dies prematurely, it's everybody else's responsibility to make up for the fact that money was spent foolishly on "feel good' consumables. And you'll find that's pretty much always the difference. Why do you think Bush says there are millions of government subsidized health insurance policies available to Americans and nobody is buying them for some 25.00 a month? Well it's because if you give a person a pay check and they decide to piss it all away and not take care of their family first, they what the government to make all the other families give up their income to pay their premiums so they can continue to piss their money away. When what they need to do is make it child abuse to have no insurance available for your child and they get sick if you could have qualified for the existing programs.

We the people are not responsible for other peoples irresponsibility. If you think they are then just knock on your neighbors door next time you need food stamps and ask them to go to the grocery store for you. And if you think that's ridiculous and can only imagine what the neighbors reaction would be; that's what democrats are currently doing every day. m It's just they rob them of their paychecks not knock on the door asking for a handout in your name.

Does that help you understand?
 
Haha, conservative rationalizations why I should get shoot for you and you wont' even give my family a buck. I ain't talking about welfare or food stamps or some other conservative talking point.

Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death.

Is it prudent to save the lives of those who won't even commit to helping your family after you save them? I won't have a premature death if you weren't so damn unprepared as a warrior. Oops.

It's all about some folks who want to be hero in a gun fight as a prime motivator and being able to say that on the Internet. If you want to help people you should intervene in the gun fight and financially for the worthy needy.

BTW, altruism is very heavily researched and one major motivator is self-image rather than the true charitable impulse. That's my major point on such internet postings.
 
Haha, conservative rationalizations why I should get shoot for you and you wont' even give my family a buck. I ain't talking about welfare or food stamps or some other conservative talking point.

Well here's a surprise, yes you are talking about a kind of welfare or food stamps; what the hell is this money you seem to think people are obligated to cough up under the circumstances?

"conservative rationalizations" I call your statements liberal guilt trips. The life insurance isn't so you can be or not be a hero; it's because you live a fragile life and anything can take it at any time. Get out of the microcosm of the guilt trip you're laying on people here and you'll see that premature death is premature death no matter what the cause. For that you buy sufficient life insurance and if you cant afford it, you were irresponsible many years ago.

BTW, altruism is very heavily researched and one major motivator is self-image rather than the true charitable impulse. That's my major point on such Internet postings.

BTW that has far more to do with ones character than your study BS is obviously capable of recognizing.

It's all about some folks who want to be hero in a gun fight as a prime motivator and being able to say that on the Internet. If you want to help people you should intervene in the gun fight and financially for the worthy needy.

and its starting to look like you're willing to be a "hero" if you're getting paid for it. Those aren't heroes, they are hit men under the circumstances. A hero reaches into a burning car and saves a life knowing he will get burned badly too and compensation NEVER enters his mind.

Glenn, if you ever see me crippled in a burning car, leave me there; I dont want you suing me for any injury you might sustain in the process of saving me.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeee is there any human life down there or is everything for sale?:barf::barf::eek::eek::confused:
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
Haha, conservative rationalizations why I should get shoot for you and you wont' even give my family a buck. I ain't talking about welfare or food stamps or some other conservative talking point.

I remember you mentioning some time back that you never served in the military nor served in law enforcement.

No big deal. Probably the majority of folks here can say the same.

However, ask any combat vet what he was fighting for. He won't tell you all the romantic, academic Hollywood BS like "Mom, apple pie and the flag." Nope. You fight for your buddies.

Me-first attitudes don't last long in that society, nor should they.

And your attitude stinks of "me-first" when it comes to your fellow citizens and neighbors. So if nobody is going to pay your family off in the event you might get hurt, then THAT'S the deciding factor as to whether or not you'll use all this fancy training you write about participating in . . . in order to save someone from harm or death?

Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death.

I would venture that I live a more "comfortable" life than you, and only mention it because "how your family presently lives" seems to be at the root of any decision you would even consider that might even give you a hangnail, let alone a nosebleed or worse in the defense of someone defenseless.

My wife is already taken very well care of. If I have a premature death, she'll be hurting--because no amount of money will replace me, nor her.

And THAT'S what matters to me as a husband, adn to her as a wife.

Not how "comfortably" she'll live if I get killed.

But likewise, if I refused to help a mugging or rape victim because I might get hurt or killed, she'd leave me on the spot and go looking for the man she married and not the selfish wuss that was suddenly standing before her.

Money and comfort aren't everything to us. In fact, on our list of priorities, they're pretty damned low.

Is it prudent to save the lives of those who won't even commit to helping your family after you save them? I won't have a premature death if you weren't so damn unprepared as a warrior. Oops.

Well, reckon I oughta quit doing these charity medical flights where I fly kids with leukemia to various chemo centers. I could crash my airplane and none of the families I'm helping would be able to give me a dime.

You see, they're already struggling--that's why vounteer pilots like myself volunteer our own money, time and resources to fly their children to medical treatment centers.

But I guess I'm more important and of greater worth to my wife and society than they are--not worth risking MY life to help maybe save theirs.

Ooops yourself.

It's all about some folks who want to be hero in a gun fight as a prime motivator and being able to say that on the Internet. If you want to help people you should intervene in the gun fight and financially for the worthy needy.

So why all the killer commando gun training and IDPA competition you seem to be into?

I've smelled more than enough hostile gunpowder in my lifetime and survived to enjoy a fruitful and fulfilling life. I've got exactly zero interest in all that combat/tactical/pretend-police/SWAT training and competition. I like shooting at things that don't represent things that shoot back. Bullseye and sillouhettes and steel plates come to mind.

BTW, altruism is very heavily researched and one major motivator is self-image rather than the true charitable impulse. That's my major point on such internet postings.

Yep, and I've said more than once that I'd have a hard time looking in the mirror for the rest of my life if I simply walked past a group of thugs raping some poor woman and I did zilch about it.

But maybe if she--in between gasps for breath--promised to pay my family a buck or two if I didn't survive my attempt to defend her. . . .

Jeff
 
Well put TexasSeaRay; good old Glenn has certainly removed any doubt anybody may have had as to his extreme selfishness and coldness towards mankind.

Buy the way, my comment that you quoted:
Every person alive who is a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" need be prudent and have life insurance in place to replace the breadwinners income in the even of a premature death.
was quoted as a basic financial planning principal so I didn't have to explain the concept of life insurance not being life insurance (or as it's sold, death insurance) it's income replacement. My comment says "a bread winner with dependants on that "bread" (or income). Therefore if your income (or money you live from) is such that a death doesn't matter, you dont need life insurance. I was a financial planner so I've seen the gutter like of people like Glenn who for example wont give up one of their three bowling league nights to have ANY life insurance for the 4 children of a wife that had no marketable skills. There are just people like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top