Gun owner database already being used for confiscation in CA

[paw080]

For those of you that miss the point of the law, it's not about confiscating

Illegal firearms from legitimate owners; it's about confiscating ANY firearm

from Illegal owners. So we talk about excluding gun ownership from those

people that should not have them; yet criticize this law that attempts to

justify such action.

Tony

 

[Vector]

For those of you that miss the point of the law, it's not about confiscating

Illegal firearms from legitimate owners; it's about confiscating ANY firearm

from Illegal owners. So we talk about excluding gun ownership from those

people that should not have them; yet criticize this law that attempts to

justify such action.

Tony

Hi Tony,

I get your point, and it does seem like a catch-22.

My staunch views are actually evolving on this issue because I, like you, was all for "criminals" not having guns. Overall I still believe that.
However my perception is based on my states laws, and what I thought I knew about most other states(with the exception of variables like CCW, OC vs. CC, etc.)
Also the way someone is defined as a criminal worthy of losing their 2nd Amendment rights forever, was pretty much the assumption you needed to be guilty of a violent felony.

I do not live in CA even though I visit a couple times per year. So some of their laws were not known by me, and now that I have gotten more info, it is leading me to wonder how low the threshold should be to lose ones Constitutional rights.
That combined with the method CA is using to confiscate guns in the state is also something I find disturbing. In my state, the background check is just that, nothing more. So the state has no idea if I went ahead with a legal purchase, nor the type of weapons I might have bought. Under those conditions I have no issue with background checks whatsoever. However if that info will be used by other states, and possibly the federal government some day, it can certainly be abused.
Now you might wonder why that would be a problem if they only want to confiscate guns from bad guys. The answer is that if they can "legally" take guns away from people who have committed misdemeanors today in CA, who is to say the government might not set the bar so low in the future as to confiscate weapons from those who get arrested at a rally for gun rights. Maybe "hate speech" might become a reason because liberals might say hate speech + gun ownership = danger to society. What if an assault weapons ban leads to confiscation of those and other type of weapons in the future from law abiding citizens with a clean record? The only way the tyrannical government could know where to get the guns from would be via records of legal purchases.

I need to run, but do you and others see my point?

`

 

[Librarian]

Another words, even though you and some others feel comfortable with most or all of CA's current laws that take away peoples 2nd amendment rights, how far would it need to go before you said enough?

I would suggest that 'comfortable' is a mis-statement.

IF it is the case that one agrees that some people, who, by their actions, transgress legal standards of behavior, and after due process of law are convicted of a crime, may be deprived of some rights, THEN CA's action looks like a legitimate exercise of police power.

In my experience, most people accept imprisonment as an appropriate result of conviction of some crimes; in prison, the inmates have very few rights. So, from this, I think the base assumption that people can be deprived of rights for some behaviors is established.

But full-on discussion of penology and likelihood of recidivism, social cost and related items would be off topic.

I do think your later concern for 'slippery slope' is well taken. See also http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/05/pe...tion-in-a-world-where-everyone-is-a-criminal/

 

[Archangel14]

CA law states anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault or battery against anyone is prohibited from firearm possession for 10 years.

I'm sorry to disagree, but this is inaccurate. Again, I'm an active criminal defense attorney in California. From memory, I believe the misdemeanor crimes that will result in a 10 year loss of gun ownership/possession rights are : PC 273.5 corporal injury on a spouse; PC 243(e)(1) domestic battery, and any of the "intimate partner" laws: PC 422, 646.9 and 243.4.

You can be convicted of misdemeanor battery (PC 242) after having punched someone in the face, and not lose your gun rights. It's very restrictive here in California. Yet oddly, California has very strong "stand your ground" and self-defense laws.

 

[Librarian]

From memory, I believe the misdemeanor crimes that will result in a 10 year loss of gun ownership/possession rights are : PC 273.5 corporal injury on a spouse; PC 243(e)(1) domestic battery, and any of the "intimate partner" laws: PC 422, 646.9 and 243.4.

The list is actually quite long and the state maintains a list on line - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/prohibcatmisd.pdf - so no need to keep it in memory.

Firearm prohibitions for misdemeanor violations of the offenses listed below are generally for ten years from the date of conviction, but the duration of each prohibition may vary. All statutory references are to the California Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

• Threatening public officers, employees, and school officials (Pen. Code, § 71.)
• Threatening certain public officers, appointees, judges, staff or their families with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat
(Pen. Code, § 76.)
• Intimidating witnesses or victims (Pen. Code, § 136.1.)
• Possessing a deadly weapon with the intent to intimidate a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.5.)
• Threatening witnesses, victims, or informants (Pen. Code, § 140.)

and on and on for a full page, including the already-mentioned

• Assault (Pen. Code, §§ 240, 241.)
• Battery (Pen. Code, §§ 242, 243.)
• Sexual Battery (Pen. Code, § 243.4)
• Assault with a stun gun or taser weapon (Pen. Code, § 244.5.)
• Assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm, or with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245.)

I suspect the notation "... the duration of each prohibition may vary." means 'get a good lawyer'.

 

[Vector]

Understand that I see this situation in California as being highly motivating and noteworthy to gun culture sort of gun owners. But then everything gun related in California is or should be highly motivating and concerning to pro 2A minded citizens . . .

On the other hand, I don't see this as a topic where there is any mileage to be gained with the people in between the two opposing camps on gun control. In fact, I think arguing it on a national level or, say, to anti-gun or undecided acquaintances is probably a losing proposition -- linking gun ownership infringement to an infringement of the rights of criminals is more likely to backfire and paint the pro-2A side as the lunatic fringe the anti-2As claim we are.

The whole debate on guns in the US is not a rational debate. It is a marketing campaign or a psychological operation, and the tools employed to forward the pro-2A agenda need to be carefully considered. The average person hearing this argument is most likely to take away a vague sense of death/danger (since guns + felons --> risk of personal death, down at the lizard brain level, for most people). Making people aware of their own mortality by supporting a perceived threat to it is not a way to sway people to your side of an argument.

I see your point and those of others who cringe at the thought of using "criminals" as a pro-2nd Amendment stance. The trouble is, what are peoples perception/definition of a criminal?

I too, never would have thought someone to be rational, and certainly not pragmatic to proffer the idea that a criminal should be legally allowed to own a firearm.
Then again, I was under the delusion that the definition of a criminal was a violent recidivist scumbag with little to know redeeming qualities.
I never once thought it through to where one time acts of indiscretion such as a bar room fight, a non violent white collar crime, or other such things would mean an otherwise law abiding citizen would be stripped of Constitutional rights for life.

The funny thing is that my original intent with starting this thread was to point out how a national background check could easily be used for eventual confiscation as evidenced by the CA example. Yet the more I think about how many people would perceive the CNN report as a good thing, it got me thinking.
That is especially true reading some of the views of my fellow gun owners regarding their almost dismissive thoughts about how these guys are in violation of the law, so they deserve what they get. Don't get me wrong, I was more or less of the same mind, but with my preconceived idea of what a deserving criminal was.
Now I'm seeing how easy it would be for the government to start coming up with all sorts of crimes worthy of firearm prohibition. Needless to say a national database, whether it was full blown registration, or under the guise of a federal/national background check could very well be used for confiscation.

Another interesting thing that some in this thread have brought up is the question, "how else do you get the guns away from those who have them illegally".
While that is a good question worthy of discussion, I certainly do not think looking to CA and their liberal politicians for answers is the way to go.

`

 

[9mmepiphany]

Don't get me wrong, I was more or less of the same mind, but with my preconceived idea of what a deserving criminal was.

That seems to be the source of your outrage.

Your preconceived idea isn't universal. That is often a source of surprise, that is why it is good to ask questions to see if your perceptions are correct and to do research into the actually definitions

That is especially true reading some of the views of my fellow gun owners regarding their almost dismissive thoughts about how these guys are in violation of the law

I think your perception of us be dismissive is a bit off too.

It isn't that we think "these guys are in violation of the law", it is that they were adjudicated as such...they were afforded due process...they weren't declared that on a whim

 

[Zoogster]

I'm sorry to disagree, but this is inaccurate. Again, I'm an active criminal defense attorney in California. From memory, I believe the misdemeanor crimes that will result in a 10 year loss of gun ownership/possession rights are

No, it is accurate, simple misdemeanor assault or battery is a 10 year prohibiting offense.
I chose not to cite the specific list because it would confuse people especially not from California and make the list seem more reasonable as most other things on the list are serious crimes that are almost universally charged as felonies, and thier being listed as misdemeanors is because they are 'wobblers' that can be reduced to or charged as misdemeanors.
So thier inclusion as prohibiting misdemeanors is almost unnecessary since over 90% of them they are almost always felonies.



You could not only not punch someone, but even getting into a macho intimidation match with either threats like verbal and balling fists and no physical contact (an assault) or minor physical contact (macho chest bumping type scenaio still is battery) could remove rights for 10 years.
Any physical contact out of anger, even the minor pushing that doesn't escalate that young men do all the time over disagreements is a battery.

Since law enforcement generally charge both parties involved when they show up and let the courts deal with the details, whose fault it was or who started what may not even avoid a conviction.



Librarian has linked the list.

A fight or even less in CA generally makes someone a prohibited person for 10 years.


Let us take a common potential issue:

Dating a woman for awhile and her ex shows up angry and starts harassing her? Getting in her face? Being intimidating and having no patience to deal with you intervening?
Won't listen to any verbal ques, and gets hostile towards you when you give any?
Do you let him bully and intimidate and bother your girlfriend?
Intimidate or threaten you when you try to deescalate things or intervene?
Presumably nothing he is doing actually rises to the level of meeting self defense requirements. He can follow her and say whatever he wants angrily or otherwise. He may be hostile, shouting, maybe even grabbing at her hands to keep her attention or continue talking to her.


Well under CA law if you want to retain your firearm rights you better not put hands on him and be a nice timid wimp. Thats the law.
Your options are to try and convince her to leave the situation, as he follows along getting agitated with you and potentially attacking at some point, and to call the police that will take many minutes to arrive, and probably arrive after it is all over.
A physical confrontation, even one he primarily escalates or starts is likely to be seen as mutual combat, resulting in conviction.
In fact even if you do everything right and he simply attacks at some point after getting agitated by your presence, the responding officers are likely to charge both who were involved in an altercation and leave it to you in court to try and prove you were not a mutual combatant.
That may or may not succeed, when it's his word against yours essentially.

Likewise the rude or angry guy that comes and hits on your wife or girlfriend, says vulgar things, continues after learning you are her man, and is generally just disrepectful? Legally you must do nothing. In fact just standing up to him without being physical can lead to it being determined to be mutual combat if he attacks you over it.
No legally you have to act almost timid (or can be seen as responsible for escalation making you a mutual combatant) and leave the situation.
Failing to do so means no firearms for you.

 

[barnbwt]

The meek are easily managed, therefore preferred by police/authorities. And they're harmless; it's not like meek people go on shooting sprees, or anything... (oh, wait...)

TCB

 

[itsa pain]

what the people here and other places when calling to get guns out of the hands of criminals dont understand that every year govt expands and passes 20000 laws a year what it means to be a criminal. the gun guys do not understand that being for background checks reg. and everything that the anti gunners suggest will be turned around and used against them.a lot of guys refuse to see a war has been declared on them and they will not stop until they win

 

[Vector]

That seems to be the source of your outrage.

Your preconceived idea isn't universal. That is often a source of surprise, that is why it is good to ask questions to see if your perceptions are correct and to do research into the actually definitions


I think your perception of us be dismissive is a bit off too.

It isn't that we think "these guys are in violation of the law", it is that they were adjudicated as such...they were afforded due process...they weren't declared that on a whim

On the first point, while I agree, lets not exaggerate by saying I'm "outraged".
Instead it is more being perplexed. Regardless of how I or anyone characterizes it, I think there is probably a disconnect between what people think are the type of criminals who should never have their Constitutional rights restored, vs. what some municipalities/states deem is worthy of such.

As to my comment about dismissive, I hope you do not think you speak for everyone on the other side of the argument. I did not necessarily mean you anyway, so unless you want to go back and read everyones comments and decide which ones you fully support, vs. those you wish to distance yourself from, don't assume to speak for them all.
Plus I do not mean it in a negative/attacking way. It is just that I do not think even staunch believers in crime = punishment would think spitting on the side walk(as an exaggeration) means you can never own a firearm for life.
Rest assured a few were basically saying, you make your bed, you sleep in it. While that old school wisdom is certainly something I subscribe to in general, there is much more to this subject that meets the eye.
That is why I posed the question about how far, would be too far, regarding minor offenses being declared by a liberal city/state as constituting no firearms for life.

I'd love to hear some responses to that question.

`

 

[9mmepiphany]

That is why I posed the question about how far, would be too far, regarding minor offenses being declared by a liberal city/state as constituting no firearms for life.

I'd love to hear some responses to that question.

That might be a bit difficult when folks can't even agree on major offenses which would reach that level.

Being familiar with how the legal system in the state operates, I don't have a problem with a misdemeanor conviction of any of the offenses listed in post #55 having those consequence...remember we're referring to convictions; not arrests or even being charged

 

[Vector]

That might be a bit difficult when folks can't even agree on major offenses which would reach that level.

Being familiar with how the legal system in the state operates, I don't have a problem with a misdemeanor conviction of any of the offenses listed in post #55 having those consequence...remember we're referring to convictions; not arrests or even being charged

Ok, listed in #55 is assault which I assume in most cases is a misdemeanor.

I know enough about the law at least in my state that assault can mean very minor altercations, even verbal ones at that.
So if you were to have an idiot co-worker get in your face and have to deal with him, that should mean you can never legally own a firearm for the rest of your life?

What about the drunk blacksheep 2nd cousin at a family gathering in a restaurant. They do something stupid like throw a drink on your wife, you two get into a scuffle, no one is seriously hurt, yet you get arrested for assault and battery, etc.?

My point is that normal law abiding citizens can get charged and even convicted of minor offenses in everyday life. Yet they certainly should not be deprived their Constitutional rights for life, or even 10 years in my view. If we use CA's standards or even worse in the future, everyone except Mormons and the Amish might be restricted from legally owning a firearm.

`

 

[9mmepiphany]

My point is that normal law abiding citizens can get charged and even convicted of minor offenses in everyday life.

Have you ever seen anyone convicted of simple misdemeanor assault in CA?

You can be arrested for it, you can even be charged with it, but it is about as rare a conviction as one on the AZ law prohibiting donkeys sleeping in bathtubs.

I can't comment on the law in your state as you don't have one listed

 

[Frank Ettin]

...My point is that normal law abiding citizens can get charged and even convicted of minor offenses in everyday life...

If someone has committed and been convicted of a crime, he is by definition not "law abiding."

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime. So I'm not bothered by persons convicted of serious or violent crimes not being able to legally possess guns.

Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a serious or violent crime is loss of gun rights.

 

[Vector]

If someone has committed and been convicted of a crime, he is by definition not "law abiding."

Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness. The world is full of people who are subject to the temptations and stresses of living in this world and still don't commit crimes. Serving one's time doesn't magically repair one's character or demonstrate that he has become more responsible or trustworthy than he was before he committed the crime. So I'm not bothered by persons convicted of serious or violent crimes not being able to legally possess guns.

Is that a perfect result? No, but we'll have to wait for Heaven for perfect justice. And overall, I don't see it as necessarily unreasonable that part of the total price tag for a serious or violent crime is loss of gun rights.

Well not to make this personal, but if you care to answer, I'd really like to read your response.

Has your life been so squeaky clean to where you have never had a confrontation with anyone in your life? Note, I did not ask if you have ever been arrested or convicted, just had trouble with a fellow human being. The reason I put it that way is because sooner or later you might find that a situation might get beyond your control, and before you know it, you will have joined the ranks of what you say is the non law abiding. Then, presumably everything about you is now subject to question like, oh say your integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness.
I wonder if you would feel as if that was suddenly a fair situation you found yourself in?

Lastly, answer me this. When someone gets off probation or out of prison for whatever crime, most if not all their rights are restored. Yet for some strange reason their Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights are not.
Since I presume you are a defender of the 2nd Amendment, how do you justify every right being returned except for one?


BTW - Please do not come up with a simpleton answer like "it is the law", as I would be very disappointed.

`

 

[9mmepiphany]

Has your life been so squeaky clean to where you have never had a confrontation with anyone in your life? Note, I did not ask if you have ever been arrested or convicted, just had trouble with a fellow human being. The reason I put it that way is because sooner or later you might find that a situation might get beyond your control, and before you know it, you will have joined the ranks of what you say is the non law abiding.

I'll not attempt to answer for Frank, but I can confidently say that his life hasn't taken him as close to the edge as mine has.

First, there is a huge divide between squeaky clean and been in a confrontation.

Secondly, having trouble with someone doesn't always lead to a confrontation and a confrontation doesn't always get beyond your control. They teach that at good CCW classes and it is always a topic of discussion in Tactical classes....that is part of the responsibility you undertake when you decide to CCW.

Even if it does get beyond your control, it is a long reach to believe that a conviction for a crime is the obvious outcome.

I'm not familiar with your Legal or Criminal Law Training, has your training taught you otherwise?

Has your personal experience been very different?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I did not ask if you have ever been arrested or convicted, just had trouble with a fellow human being...

I have always managed to handle within the law whatever difficulties I've had.

...Lastly, answer me this. When someone gets off probation or out of prison for whatever crime, most if not all their rights are restored. Yet for some strange reason their Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights are not.
Since I presume you are a defender of the 2nd Amendment, how do you justify every right being returned except for one?...

It's really not my place to justify it, but we should all be aware that a gun is a unique instrument capable of projecting instant death or grave injury at a distance, and is a tool well suited to assisting in criminal enterprise. As such, one could conclude that it is socially inadvisable to give persons who have demonstrated themselves to be of questionable integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness ready access to such a tool.

In any case, setting penalties for crimes is generally within the purview of the various legislatures. They do so within the framework of the legislative process, as part of which interested parties on both sides of the question make their views known. And politicians who support unpopular positions become vulnerable to losing their jobs.

So it appears that the current range of penalties, including incarceration for a period, loss of voting rights and loss of the right to possess firearms indefinitely (subject to any provisions for restoration of rights), and in some cases a loss of one's property, are generally acceptable to enough voters.

 

[Vector]

I should have been more clear.

I did not mean confrontations with a weapon or involving use of a CCW. Rather just run of the mill encounters with people, many of whom disregard the law, and get you caught up in it.
A few quick examples, are like the ones I gave in the previous post with a co-worker or a drunk 2nd cousin. It could be a fender bender, someone shoves in in the grocery line and will not back off, etc.
Sometimes trying to restrain a drunk fool itching to fight can get you in trouble. From the sound of things, many here are not the passive "B" type personalities that would just sit and observe. Then again, even if that were the case, someone might set his sights on you for whatever reason, and once he puts his hands on you, you are involved, like it or not.

I will respond to other specifics you guys posed, but in the mean time, use the everyday possible examples as your starting point.

TIA

 

[9mmepiphany]

I still don't have a starting point as I generally avoid those kinds of situations.

They don't just start. They are usually preceded by the Monkey Dance. All you have to do is decline to take part in it.

It isn't like you are a LEO who really doesn't have a choice to be there.

It could be a fender bender, someone shoves in in the grocery line and will not back off, etc.
Sometimes trying to restrain a drunk fool itching to fight can get you in trouble. From the sound of things, many here are not the passive "B" type personalities that would just sit and observe. Then again, even if that were the case, someone might set his sights on you for whatever reason, and once he puts his hands on you, you are involved, like it or not.

It sounds like some of your other preconceived ideas of accepted behavior are about to be shaken.

Neither a fender bender nor line jumping are reasons to get into a verbal, much less a physical confrontation.
Why would you try to restrain a drunk in the first place?
What would you have done to have someone set their sights on you; why would you let them get close enough to lay their hands on you?
It isn't a matter of "for whatever reason"; the reason matters...both to you and responding officers

 

[Frank Ettin]

And if it's okay with him, I'll sign on to 9mmepiphany's response. The bottom line is that the vast majority of folks manage to get through their lives without committing crimes, let alone serious or violent crimes.

 

[Vector]

Christ O'Mighty, unless you are being obtuse, you sound like you have lived in a bubble or something.

Assuming you went to college, have had different jobs, attended family gatherings, have had idiot neighbors, gone to sporting events with alcohol, to nightclubs etc., I'd assume you would have encountered some of the possible scenarios I've mentioned.

Then again maybe you live in Bel Aire, attended Stanford, have never had jerk co-workers, all your relatives have great manners, etc.

I live in a big city full of wacko people who have attitudes. While most of my life has been relatively free from problems, when I think back over the years, I certainly have encountered my share of situations that resulted in me being involved with issues that could result in disputes with my fellow man.
I already mentioned one situation where a 3 time ex-con approached me in an aggressive manner in a parking lot, put his hand on me, and trouble ensued. The incident that led up to that was not relevant other than to say I was blocked in, and this fool was the reason. I was trying to be reasonable, he was being an aggressive vulgar tough guy, so I was left with no choice.

Then I can think back a few decades to where a guy was roughing up his girl/wife outside a grocery store I was coming out of, and I intervened. No sooner did I help her by seperating him from her, she turned on me. Had the police been called, there is no doubt they both would have had the same story, and off to jail I would have went. Those are just two of probably a dozen incidents over my life where I could have been on the wrong end of the legal system. Most in my mind were within the law and/or doing the right thing, but others may not have felt the same way.
Ironically I probably have been left alone more often than not because I am a big guy at 6'7" 240lbs, so smaller guys in the same city might very well have more incidents.

I can also pool upon stories other law abiding friends have dealt with like the 2nd cousin example I gave earlier. If you would just sit there while an idiot in-law verbally and physically abused your wife, then you must be an angel or a wimp(no personal offense intended).

My point is that unless you live a sheltered life, sooner or later you will encounter people who are aggressive even if you are calm. Yet all it can take is one minor incident over a lifetime to be able to have your Constitutional right to bear firearms revoked.
As it relates to my overall premise in this thread, CA seems to be not only taking firearms away from those who most people would say deserve it, but also a subset of one time misdemeanor people. That is certainly different than the state I live in, and I suspect it is worse in CA than most other states. I certainly hope other states do not import what CA does. Next thing you know, hate speech might constitute loss of rights, which ironically would deprive people of both 1st and 2nd Amendment protections.

`

 

[Alaska444]

Please don't profane my Saviour's name.

To answer your question, I have not had a physical confrontation with anyone since about age 18. I had a guy pull a knife on me at that time. About 6 months ago, a homeless person did approach me outside our church where I was alone and I had to take a defensive posture and he went away cursing me when I told him I can't help you, but I did hold my ground. That is the only incident in 36 years and all I had to do was to hold my ground. During that 36 years, one of my passions was preaching to maximum security prisoners at a CA facility with a whole bunch of LWOPS. (Life without possibility of parole) Encountering dangerous people, how you respond to them almost always determines the outcome of the encounter.

I am now 54 with no further such encounters. One of my friends is an 8th degree black belt and in the Karate Hall of Fame. Guess what, he has NEVER had to use his knowledge in a self defense situation although one of these days he may take my tongue in cheek challenge to step outside seriously. He told me that the closest he ever got to a fight was once. He is now 65 and has been a black belt since his mid 30's.

Not sure what point you are trying to make, but shucks folks can actually make it through each day without getting into an altercation that could turn physical. As they say, it takes two to tango. If you find yourself in frequent situations that could lead to an altercation, perhaps you should consider NOT carrying a sidearm since your past history will be used against you in a court of law. BTW, I have lived a very full life thank you in and out of large cities and 9 years spent in the military.

 

[Zoogster]

I am glad things are so simple for some.



Plenty of people do deal with people that will only get worse if you avoid all confrontation.
Doing some blue collar work at various times I have certainly seen a crowd that has no respect for passive individuals. People that avoid all confrontation will become a target of theft and other things.
Your food or drinks in the workplace fridge, personal items like tools or phones charging, and other personal items etc
Essentially those who are most passive are likely to have a more hostile work environment or be victims.
Those too quick to confrontation have more problems, but those that avoid it all the time have more than those in between.

As far as not even getting in a verbal argument over people cutting or shoving in line. While there is plenty of wisdom for the individual in that, as a society that becomes a pretty crummy society when respect for places in line and similar things mean nothing.
It actually creates more violence and problems later on as everyone does whatever they want that is not illegal and the number of incidents increases. Cut in line, cut and take parking spots, etc.
The only reason there is order is because people in general respect such things, if people with no respect are not even confronted others see it and more start to be that way, getting the benefits of doing the wrong thing until it gets to the point that those adhering to the right thing have it bad.
Those that avoid all conflict benefit from those who do not and so its not as bad as it would be otherwise, they just don't realize it.
You don't want to essentially wind up with a society where only the thugs and criminals can stand up for things. Where in many situations they become more respectable because they will actually speak up or say something when things are done wrong, because the law abiding citizen is trying to remain passive and do no wrong.
A society where only the bad guys can voice thier views becomes one guided by a bad element. Depending on the guy from the motorcycle gang to be the only one willing to open thier mouth when they see the wrong thing being done just gives more credibility and respect and influence to bad elements of society.


Not a big TV person but there is even that TV show where the try to see if people will speak up or do the right thing when they stage situations in public with people doing something wrong. With being confrontational the only 'right' option in many situations.
The solution of some here would obviously be to never do that, because avoiding all confrontation is itself the right thing.

I am reminded of 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' line of Edmonde Burke.


And it goes goes back to the 2nd Amendment Right being restricted over minor things.
Anyone that takes 'from my cold dead hands' literally cannot really combine that with 'unless a vindictive girlfriend/wife lies about domestic incidents, or a drunk gets vulgar with my wife/girlfriend/daughter and won't leave them alone, or...'
It is pretty incompatible, you have rights that shall not be infringed, unless you cross a minor line and then they are revoked?
A society where you must never cross a relatively petty line, and if you do things are beyond repair?
That seems like a ripe situation to turn good people into bad.




Now I am of the mindset to be even more passive if I have a firearm or other deadly weapon. However this applies to people without a firearm too, even ownership is revoked for an assault or someone deemed a mutual combatant when attacked because they are considered to have not avoided the situation if they confronted someone.
But society really depends on some people to speak up, or verbally confront people doing the wrong thing. That is one of the forces that keeps society halfway decent.
Telling everyone they shouldn't be and just be passive witnesses results in a society where criminals and those with less to lose are able to shape things more and bring society down.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Then again maybe you live in Bel Aire, attended Stanford, have never had jerk co-workers, all your relatives have great manners, etc.

You offer this, as if it isn't something to aspire to. I do indeed expect my daughter to attend Stanford and my son is attending an equivalent college in his field (no, he hasn't had any violent encounters either)

My experience has been somewhat similar to that of Alaska444. I'm 59 and I can't even remember the last confrontation I've had, in my personal life, where calm did not sooth flaring tempers...I'm not talking about staying calm, but actually having inner calm, likely much like his Karate friend.

I wouldn't call you obtuse, since it isn't constructive, but perhaps you should look within yourself to see where these issues are rooted