![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Easy.....put a fence around it. The high school I went to had around 25 or so buildings, about 1,600 students. They put up a tall solid fence around the school, with locking gates. You can do that at any school. Any time a gate is open, you have a security guard standing there. Steve |
Well, a lot of talk after yet another round of events. But in the end, same old same old. Nothing will change. These things will continue to happen because those who could make changes happen do not want that.
|
Quote:
https://www.tiktok.com/@garyramey1/v...kmXy8FTat&_r=1 https://youtu.be/vZSA7QjVT6A Trudeau's new gun law doesn't target gun crime https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...rget-gun-crime |
I understand a lot of the positions and points people are making, but in the end, all a lot of you are proposing is really nothing more than putting a band-aid on an ever-increasing problem in our country. All that adding more controls and monitoring, background checks, security, and such, does is tantamount to treating the symptoms, and not actually working to even try to cure the underlying disease and its causes. The problem is, there is no really specific, direct cause that can be focused on to correct things.
Part of the problem may be in how we raise our children these days. Spanking or disciplining children back in the early baby boomer days was how children had been raised forever it would seem prior to, and up through, my generation. When I was a kid, if you got swatted at school, you prayed no one called and told your parents because if the school did, chances are you'd get an even worse whupping from your parents when you got home. Children were more often taught to respect and listen to adults and older people, not talk back, nor cause issues and obey the rules. Nowadays, kids are more often taught to stand up for themselves, question things and authority, and speak out and against others who are telling them what they should be doing. That kind of modern thinking, coupled with the information and images that our children are now bombarded with on a daily basis due to the internet, unfiltered images and information and lack of responsible censorship on TV, movies, and other media available to them, helps to put ideas and images into their heads. A lot of the TV shows and movies, especially those accessible on streaming and internet services, oftentimes show and glorify extremely violent and lethal images and ideas. The human brain is not fully developed and a person's persona and such not truly mature until someone reaches their mid to late 20's. All these changes and images and such affect and influence our thinking and actions growing up and developing into the people we become. As such, mental health is probably another huge factor as well in at least some of these incidents. And let's face it, our country's handling of people with mental issues and disabilities isn't stellar. More often than not, we try to sweep such people under the rug, and end up leaving it to our law enforcement to take over in such situations. I've heard that possibly 30%-40% of those people in our prisons today actually suffer from some form or type of mental illness or mental deficiency. Our society would probably be better served as a whole by not just locking them up and throwing them into our penal system. But that is what our society does, out of sight, out of mind, right? Even drug use can be hugely affected by mental issues. Many, many, many young people in their teens and early 20's get involved in, and continue drug use, as a form of self-medication for underlying mental issues. Locking them up in our "war on drugs", is that really how we should best be handling and helping such people? Another factor is population. Regardless of what we say and do, there is always going to be some portion of our society that is going to have mental issues and deficiencies, and some small portion that is going to be psychopathic, whether we like it or not. And the larger our population grows, the more of such people, including psychopaths, there are. And there is really nothing we can do about that. Also, many may point to the extinction of the nuclear family as a further contributing cause to the issues we face. Instead of Moms (or Dads) being at home to raise their children, give them guidance and instruction, and steer them to be respectful and helpful of others, more often than not in today's world, children are raised in single parent families, or in those where both parents need to work to make ends meet, leaving their children to be raised by others who are not so concerned with how they are brought up, and their values and thinking being more influenced by the TV and internet they are often left with to entertain them. Just think, were it not for kids being left to entertain themselves so much with the internet and such, "Baby Shark" is likely not the most played online song of all time. And of course, the internet and social media has created the influences and ideas that previously weren't available to our population. You wouldn't have people running off to join ISIS, or other such organizations, or hearing and absorbing such extreme ideologies, if they weren't readily available to our population. None of these, and the myriad of other potential contributing factors to people's mental health and thinking and other issues that can lead to these situations we are experiencing with regard to guns, is the sole, major contributing factor. But they are contributing to these situations and issues and more of the true causes as to why these episodes are happening more and more. Along with the 24/7 media we now have, putting such things out there and contributing to other people then seeing and copying and emulating those in these other situations. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution or answer to what is happening in our society, and foregoing our constitutional rights and protections aren't necessarily going to solve and stop any of these situations and episodes either. I wish I knew of a quick fix to our society's problems in regard to guns, but there is no one single solution that will ever make everyone is our society happy. Bottom line is, increased gun control and security alone will not stop such episodes from still occurring, and there's no guarantee that instituting any such measures would ever have completely stopped any that have occurred. Again, those are ways to treat the symptoms, not the cause. And since someone else also brought up the issue of abortion and the upcoming SCOTUS ruling, I thought I'd mention there is a somewhat hypocritical correlation between those states that have a death penalty, and those that are proposing more stringent and restrictive abortion rights. It is interesting, and something I don't quite understand, how people who are pro-life, could also be pro-death penalty. I imagine many of those who do follow this thinking, rationalize such by declaring the major difference is that one side of the issues deals with innocents, and the other side with guilty parties. It just seems to me that if you are a pro-life proponent, you would be pro-life in ALL regards and instances, and not just pick and choose when and where to follow your instincts. Just saying. |
Quote:
|
So Bob, is a pro-life individual being a hypocrite if he or she signs up for military or police service knowing that could involve the taking of a human life?
Personally I see no inconsistency between being pro-life and supporting the appropriate (and hopefully very limited) use of the death penalty. |
A person who is against abortion has determined that a fetus is a life, that that life is human, and that it is thus wrong to murder this innocent life.
A person who is for the death penalty thinks that some particularly vile crimes should include death as a possible punishment, after trial and conviction for said crime. I don't see any contradiction between these viewpoints. The argument that it is a contradiction ignores the factor of guilt entirely. |
Quote:
|
The mother of the POS shooter saying her child "had their reasons" is the most despicable thing I've seen regarding this during. The police response is the most atrocious. Threads like this are the most disrespectful.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
"The mother of the POS shooter saying her child "had their reasons" is the most despicable thing I've seen regarding this"
I think you may have found the reason the kid was so screwed up, and the reason that more gun legislation would not solve this problem alone. Unless of course we can legislate getting rid of POS parents that raise POS kids that shoot other people, I'd be a yes vote on that. |
[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;2229946]So Bob, is a pro-life individual being a hypocrite if he or she signs up for military or police service knowing that could involve the taking of a human life?
Personally I see no inconsistency between being pro-life and supporting the appropriate (and hopefully very limited) use of the death penalty.[/QUOT Go ask a true Amish person, or maybe you could have asked Muhammad Ali when he was still with us, if they are/were hypocrites. Or how about having asked someone like Desmond Doss what his thoughts would have been as well, when he was still with us, as far as someone being a hypocrite for being a pro-life, anti-war person. It would seem to me that if someone is saying they are pro-something, there shouldn't be any exceptions, or do you disagree Peter? For example, if I tell you I'm a dyed-in-the-wool vegetarian/vegan, but on my birthdays and maybe a special holiday or two every year I cheat and have a burger, then I'm really not a true vegetarian/vegan after all, am I? And please don't give me some crap answer that I'm allowed to veer every once and a while and still maintain I'm a vegetarian/vegan. I either am or I am not. Trying to make minor exceptions to make myself happy or feel good about myself is simply lying to myself then, period! And one would think the same could be said for something like being pro-life. Saying to oneself that they are pro-life, but then rationalizing and making exceptions for the death penalty in certain instances, or allowing for abortions if the Mother's life is at stake, and so on, are simply drawing different lines in the sand as to where a certain individual is comfortable with how they may feel. That is just rationalizing their position, but at the same time trying to make it look and sound like they are something they really may not be. In this case, truly pro-life. In other words they are lying to others, and especially themselves. The sad truth is that probably a vast majority of the people in this world say and live this this kind of crap day in and day out, just to make themselves feel good and tell themselves what a truly good person they are, and rationalize their feelings to better fit in with whatever group they want to position themselves with. And I'm not just talking about pro-life or pro-abortion, or pro-gun or anti-gun, questions and issues. In the end, many people are mostly lying to themselves about a myriad of things, but then complicating life even further by politicizing such thoughts and feelings and trying to project (force) them onto others. They are basically telling others they have to think like they do, or they are wrong and possibly should be arrested and punished as such for not believing exactly as they believe in many cases. I don't know about you, but lying to oneself to rationalize one's feelings and thoughts seems like the ultimate form of hypocrisy to me. |
Some serious black or white, or maybe it's all or nothing, thinking there. Most issues in life are not all or nothing, they are nuanced and complicated. And btw what gives you the moral authority to decide who is "truly" pro-life and who is just lying to himself and others?
|
Quote:
Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever. A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing. A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time. This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Replace "vaccine mandates" with "eliminating access to abortion" and "saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact" with "the life of an embryo/fetus" and you've just described a pro-choice position. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
As my torts professor used to say, most arguments are "flappable."
|
Quote:
I can’t think of the fallacy name, but a false pretense of ignorance is here too - everyone here is well aware what pro-life and pro-choice are actually in reference too - the issue of abortion, not all-encompassing totalist philosophies of the universe. |
Politicization and the media.
https://youtu.be/q3Qd7lRToLw |
Media Didn't Expect Buffalo Shooter Witness To be So Honest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOOsNYryHAg |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk |
Quote:
You and your "friend" are now calling me an extremist and claim I'm acting like a "moral authority" for mentioning what the term Pro-life means to me, and how I feel people who claim to be Pro-life, but then have exceptions to that in regards to say the death penalty, or allowing abortions for rape or when the Mother's life is at stake, are rationalizing and are not truly Pro-life in all instances after all. And that was why I used the example of the vegetarian/vegan, to add context to what I was saying, and why and where my thinking was coming from. But that was totally ignored apparently, probably because it didn't prove your point and/or fit with the narrative of what you and your friend wanted it to be. And talk about being an absolutist in regards to something, who gave you and G1911 the right to apparently decide for everyone on the planet that Pro-life always refers to just abortions and the abortion issue? It does not mean just that to me, and I wouldn't be too surprised if it means quite a bit more than what you two are making it out to be to quite a lot of other people as well. But you two obviously speak for everyone else on the planet, right? :rolleyes: Or so you both seem to think. My original post in this thread was about how all the statements about gun control, what to do, who's to blame, how to fix things, etc., in regards to these mass shootings and such, all seemed to be nothing more than band-aids to treat the symptoms, and were not focusing on the actual root problems and issues. And absolutely no one made a comment or gave an opinion on that, despite it likely being one of the most relevant, and honest posts, in this thread regarding guns and the gun issues, and what we should really be talking about and doing hopefully stop all the violence and shootings. Instead, you and your buddy decide to take issue with the final observation I made regarding abortions, since someone else had already brought it up, and how I found it somewhat hypocritical that a lot of the states with the death penalty were also arguing for more anti-abortion restrictions, yet considered themselves Pro-life proponents. I don't give a rat's ass what you two think Pro-life means or stands for, but I'll damned if you two are going to shove your interpretation and thinking of that down my throat as the be-all, end-all understanding of what that phrase's meaning is to everyone else in the world. Especially since there is no final, exact, and agreed upon list of what exceptions are allowed for someone to feel it is okay to see/have someone killed/die, and yet still consider themselves a proponent of life. And as far as any of my comments possibly being ignorant G1911, the only ignorant thing I have done is waste my time responding to you two! And as to my referring to people lying to themselves, you really want to argue with me and claim that most every human on this planet has not already at some point in time during their life, or at some point yet to come, rationalized something to themselves so they can feel good about whatever it was they did or decided? Like saying they're Pro-life, but agree with executing people in what they think are the right circumstances, or agreeing with abortions in certain situations. So you're basically just lying to yourself when you say you're Pro-life, but do so with rationalizing exceptions. And that is being hypocritical to yourself, claiming to be something you aren't completely. And if you two want to claim that you've never rationalized something for yourselves, and therefore never lied to yourselves, then I know you're both lying, so just go sit down somewhere and quit bothering me and turning this thread into something it wasn't originally intended to be! |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am not living in a black and white world, There are so many different opinions and ideas as to what may or may not be acceptable in regards to accepting that people may be killed or die in certain circumstances, and yet that person can still be viewed by themselves, or others, as being Pro-Life. And since there is no one definitive, agreed upon by all people's meaning for that term, and list of allowable exceptions to still be considered a Pro-Life person, I have chosen to think in terms of the actual meaning of that phrase. Absent the inclusion of any context or background for a specific situation or set of circumstances, taking the literal meaning of the term "Pro-Life" seemed to me to be the most educated and logical place to start then. The term, "proponent of life", doesn't state there are exceptions for murderers, or for fetus' of raped women, or whatever other exceptions someone may have. And since I have absolutely no way of knowing each and every other person's exact definition of what Pro-Life means to them, I figure it best to start with exactly what someone with a reasonable intelligence would look to, the definition of the specific term - proponent of life. The one concrete meaning behind that term is that the person it applies to would be for life, in all possible situations where there is a choice to be made. If you want to have an exception for yourself, or in a specific situation like this thread, then state, I'm Pro-Life, but believe in the death penalty for convicted murderers, or something along those lines for whatever exception(s) you may have. You can't just assume everyone else is going to agree with your exact definition and understanding of what that term means. And again, that is also why I specifically gave the vegetarian/vegan example in my earlier post, to show the context of my meaning and where I was coming from. So Tim, if someone tells you they are a vegan or vegetarian, do you automatically assume that means they eat absolutely no meat whatsoever, or that they cheat a couple times a year, or maybe they only mean red meat and poultry is okay, or possibly they don't have an issue if their food is cooked in animal fat as long as it contains no actual meat, and so on? See my point? You don't know exactly what they mean, or the complete background and context behind the statement of their being a vegan/vegetarian. Yet, I get called out by a couple people accusing me of not paying attention to the situation and not supposedly understanding the context behind the term "Pro-Life", despite the fact I am given no specific background or context for how someone was using or referring to that term in this thread. And don't go trying to tell me it was implied, unless you can point me to the specific statement in this thread, before I posted, where it says the term Pro-Life is only to be used in reference to abortions and the abortion issue. If it was and I missed it, I'll gladly apologize for my mistake in having missed that post then. But still, I found it almost laughable that I get accused of being ignorant due to my statements and not magically guessing and understanding the context of the term "Pro-Life" as used in this thread, that others have now declared what it is after the fact, even though there was no previous context offered or given to my knowledge. Meanwhile, I went out of my way to provide a specific example to show the context of my understanding and treatment of the term "Pro-Life", using a vegetarian/vegan example, yet the accusing parties seem to have totally ignored that very relevant fact, or didn't comprehend it, and yet I'm supposed to be the ignorant one. Yeah, right! |
Quote:
i never made any argument by the way, I simply stated my opinion as to how I feel states that are for stricter abortion laws and anti-abortion, yet for the death penalty, seem to me to be somewhat hypocritical. You can have any damn opinion you want, I don't care, just don't try telling me that whatever opinion I may have is wrong because it isn't yours. Again, you also ignored the obvious example I gave to show where I was coming from and my context, but because that doesn't agree with your narrative and thinking, I'm automatically wrong in your eyes. Another big surprise. The term Pro-Life is specifically used by many advocates instead of the term Anti-Abortion, because they want to highlight their belief that abortion is the taking of a human life. And thus, they are advocating for human life, which isn't solely defined as fetuses. You, however, are apparently trying to state that it is only relevant for the taking of a human life in regards to abortion though, which I don't think is entirely true. Here's a current article discussing the much more evolved and complex meanings behind the terms Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, and specifically how the meaning of the term Pro-Life now encompasses a lot more than you're alluding to. If there is someone who may not fully understand and comprehend the currently accepted meaning of the Pro-Life term, and what it may truly stand for and how it encompasses ALL lives, I think it is you. You don't want to think there could be conflicting opinions to yours? Guess what, too bad for you, they're out there and help to prove my point! https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro...fe-pro-choice/ And by the way, the opposite of Pro-Life is not necessarily considered Pro-Choice by everyone, it is actually considered Pro-Death by many. Do yourself a favor and do a little reading up. Your myopic view of this is appalling. And I do apologize for calling you and Peter friends, it was just the two of you coming back at me seemed to be getting along for a bit, so i mistakenly lumped you together. My bad, Peter is actually a very good guy, but he completely missed my point. I merely answered his questions and I don't think he understood where I was coming from. You, on the other hand................................. So hopefully reading the article and the now recognized meaning of Pro-Life as being for ALL lives, not just fetuses, you'll understand the logic behind my suggesting how being against abortion, but for the death penalty. can be thought of as somewhat hypocritical for someone claiming to be Pro-Life. So as I said, a Pro-Life person who is for the death penalty, appears to be making exceptions to the common understanding of what Pro-Life means, at least what it may mean to a lot of other people that aren't you. But by rationalizing, a person is able to be for the execution of a convicted murderer in certain instances, yet still consider themselves to be a Pro-Life person as well. So here's the definition of "rationalize". https://www.bing.com/search?q=ration...ANAB01&PC=HCTS I especially like the last part of that main definition, "even if these are not true or appropriate". Hmmmmm, "even if these are not true", gee, isn't that a sort of nice way to say you are lying? So, as I suggested and opened up for discussion in that earlier post (not personal attacks), rationalizing how presenting yourself as a Pro-Lifer, while still being for the death penalty, can be logically construed in some instances as lying to yourself so you can still feel good about your personal choices. I am not attacking and condemning, nor condoning, anyone in particular or their opinions. I'm merely pointing out how by someone rationalizing a point of view by effectively lying to themselves, they are maybe committing the ultimate form of hypocrisy. (Do I need to link you to the definition of "hypocrisy" as well, or can you look that one up yourself to see I'm not wrong in my thinking, once again?) |
You may want to call your pharmacy this morning and see if they can renew your prescription for your meds.
|
Quote:
1) Liberal takeover of the educational system 2) The internet 3) First person shooter video games 4) Unlimited availability to pornography 5) Food additives 6) Overall dietary changes from fats to carbs 7) Unknown medication conflicts 8) Contaminated water supplies 9) Hollywood Possible Solution: 1) Equal balance of Liberal & Conservative thought in schools 2) Limit under 18 internet access 3) Eliminate underage access to first person shooter video games 4) Eliminate underage access to pornography 5) Purify the food supply 6) Balance underage diets 7) Limit medications for children have long track records 8) Purify the water supply 9) Eliminate underage access to violent and sexual media content Prediction: In 1 generation most of the problems subside. The less expensive way out of this is blaming guns. If we as a nation don’t want the Liberty then there is a mechanism to remove it. Otherwise it stays in place. |
Quote:
How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"? I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?" So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes. |
Quote:
Quote:
Wow, talk about thinking in absolutes. Do you automatically assume that self-defense has to include killing the perpetrator? This should not need to be said, but a pro-lifer can defend him(her)self and his(her) family without resorting to killing. To think otherwise is unreasonable. Quote:
The pro-choice vs. pro-life dichotomy doesn't exist. It's a made-up artifice perpetrated by people who are against abortion to persuade others that they are morally superior to people who don't have the same belief about abortion that they have. That is the plain, simple truth about pro-choice vs. pro-life. I happen to be pro-life and pro-choice. Even though being pro-life and not opposed to the death penalty makes me a hypocrite, being pro-life and pro-choice does not. |
Quote:
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok. Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want) As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations). I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING. . |
The last word is yours Bob. You're too angry, defensive and reactive for me to engage in a reasonable discussion. It seems a person can't disagree with you without you taking personal offense and turning it into a fight/diatribe. No thanks. Peace.
|
Quote:
I simply believe it's in poor taste to have this discussion/debate in the wake of an event that took the lives of a bunch of 4th graders. Between the shooter's mental health history, the obvious piss poor parenting from the POS's POS mother, and the police response, blaming the inanimate firearm(s) shouldn't even come to mind. All shootings involve mental health issues, while most additionally involve family issues and some sort of Big Pharma drug. Nobody wants to debate that, though, because it 1) doesn't make someone money, 2) the topics don't exactly fit certain political agendas, and 3) actually solving problems means less money to be made and less opportunity at power grabs, encompassing 1 & 2. Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? So, please, "debate" away while my wife and I discuss schooling options that are not public school, considering "debates" like this prove fewer people actually care about focusing on real solutions to protecting our kids than should. |
Kyle, to one of your points, last year in my hometown the police shot and killed a man who refused to put down his weapon and was behaving in a very threatening way. The officers were exonerated, but what struck me was the finding that the man was on an unbelievable cocktail of about 10 psychoactive meds. My thought was that his doctor was the one who should have been investigated.
|
Quote:
I feel it's ok to have this discussion in the wake of a huge tragedy. It might be more disrespectful in a different venue (such as in Uvalde proper) as it might be seen as too soon. There have been tens of millions of discussions just like this one since this last tragedy. I politely disagree with "all shootings involve mental issues" . Maybe most mass shootings do but not ALL shootings in general. That said I am only guessing. I think this debate does, as you and your wife are doing, spur debate concerning school safety, home schooling and much more. That is a good thing. . |
How many remember the Cokeville Elementary School Bombing? It happened in Cokeville, WY on May 16, 1986. A crazed loon and his wife took 154 hostages (mostly children) in a classroom and threatened to designate a bomb if his demands weren't met (I think he wanted $2 million per child, but I don't remember exactly). Anyway, the idiot's wife accidentally designated the bomb and fortunately only her and her husband were killed. However, a lot more were seriously injured. My point is this: you don’t need guns to kill a lot of people. These two idiots tried to do it with a bomb. Sure, you can argue that they were unsuccessful and only killed themselves in the end, but the point is that the bomb was powerful enough that it could have killed everyone in that classroom. Just remember 9/11 - a few bad guys with boxcutters killed nearly 3000 people and there were no guns involved. We didn’t have discussions about banning boxcutters or making them less accessible. No, we locked and reinforced cockpit doors. Why don’t we lock schools (where were can) and individual classrooms?
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's wild that we (others really, I gave no opinion on abortion itself) were having a very polite and civil discussion on abortion, and it's now starting to derail over people pretending not to know what the terms even mean. Usually it's the opinion on abortion that causes the fire, not the dictionary. For those who claim not to know: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice |
Quote:
I don't disagree with your view, I too wish people who stop pretending it's a tool if the tool used has political capital (there's never a left-wing outrage over a hammer murder or a knife murder) and would address the actual issue: the person who used the tool. But everyone is entitled to their opinion in a debate. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.
|
Quote:
Okay BobC. You win. I will agree with you. You are truly mentally incapable of understanding what pro-choice and pro-life mean in an abortion debate. Congratulations on this stunning victory. Quote:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-choice https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The response to 9/11 wasn't just reinforcing cockpit doors and, yes, boxcutters and other sharp objects were made to be less accessible. Even today, only some sharp items are allowed in carry on bags or on your person while others need to be stowed away in checked baggage. The response to aviation threats has only added more security measures. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-...objects?page=0 Along with that, the government actually responded to the issue pretty quickly instead of today's world where there is initial outrage, followed by talks of "compromise" to work together and come to a solution, and then followed by everybody moving on to the next shiny object to cause outrage and forgetting about the previous issue until it happens again. Within three months of 9/11, DHS and TSA were created. Screening was handed over to the government instead of private companies. The Patriot Act was passed. Someone tried to detonate his shoe a few months later so now we all have to take our shoes off for screening. All baggage is now screened for explosives and other prohibited items. There was then a threat involving liquids so all liquids, gels, and aerosols were banned from carry on bags (later updated to no more than 3.4 ounces in a clear plastic bag). There is also now 100% pre-screening for all domestic, outbound, and inbound flights to the US. |
Quote:
As to whether America has "a parenting problem" or "a mental health problem" or a "profits above human lives problem" the answer, in my view, is yes to all of these. For some perspective on whether or not America has "a gun problem", I recommend speaking with literally anyone outside of our country. |
I remember when we just measured pee-pees. Now it's the number of, capacity of, and firing rate of our firearms.
I find it very interesting that seemingly sane "collectors' and "sportsman" fall into a Rambo-esque wet dream when posed with the fictional scenario of "them coming for my guns". I wonder who they think will be coming? Will the unwavering support for our military and law enforcement be shrugged off as they lay a spray across their front lawn? The rhetoric is insane. Both sides know there is common ground. As in any issue, allowing the loudest on each side to dominate the "discussion" is rarely the solution. |
Quote:
The whole issue regarding abortion comes down to one question - when does life begin? If a person believes life begins at conception, then they should be against abortions and should choose not to have one. But, not everyone believes that life begins at conception. I don't (that's why I can be pro-life and pro-choice). Women who choose to have an abortion most likely do not. Many other people do not believe life begins at conception. By not allowing a pregnant woman to abort the unborn fetus if that is her choice, a person who believes life begins at conception is imposing their BELIEF on that woman. She's being denied her choice. Earlier you were talking about extreme views - my belief is that believing life begins at conception is the extreme view. Many extreme responses are required to fully implement that view. |
Quote:
But, just out of curiosity, when do you believe that life begins? |
Quote:
So what do you call the person who wrote the quote above? She's against euthanasia because she believes in the sanctity of life, but according to you, she can't call herself pro-life unless she is talking strictly about her stance against abortion. I also find it very odd that a person could be "pro-life" because they're against abortion and then not give a damn about that life after it's born. |
Here's an interesting piece on that "extreme" view of life.
https://abort73.com/abortion/abortio...pocratic_oath/ |
Quote:
I don't have a clear cut moment at when I think life begins. It's definitely not before there is a heartbeat. I would put it somewhere along the line of when the fetus can survive on its own. But, since YOU believe life begins at conception, where's your moral outrage at all of the fertilized eggs (i.e., conception) that are naturally aborted? https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education...issed%20menses. "In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses." Why aren't you and people like you demanding that women who lose a fertilized egg be charged with a crime at the loss of life ... charge them with involuntary manslaughter or something. Why aren't you demanding that every time they have a bloody discharge, the discharge needs to be sent in to be checked for fertilized eggs (a now dead life)? That way you can punish them for ending that life. Why aren't workers at fertility clinics where they plant multiple fertilized eggs in a woman charged with murder if every egg isn't born? Why? Because most people do not actually believe that life begins at conception. Either that or they're not really concerned about the staggering loss of life. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I own zero guns, unless you count the Daisy 880 air rifle I got for Christmas in 1989, which is still in my basement somewhere. I don't have BB's for it anymore.
As a parent, I have zero desire to have anything to do with guns right now - and wish more of the US felt the same way. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It conflates three different things. Rate of fire - Rounds per minute Capacity- how many the gun holds Full vs semi-automatic. Easiest one first. Fully automatic=Pull the trigger it shoots till you stop or the ammo runs out. Semi Automatic= One pull one shot, but you have to pull the trigger for each one. A large percentage of guns are this type. The shotgun my friend has me use for trap shooing is. I just load one at a time to stay within the rules. Fully automatic - "machine guns" have been heavily controlled since the mid 1930's. Full registration, $200 tax to transfer, very serious background check, some serious legal trouble for not doing things properly. Since those controls were put in place, last I checked there have only been 2-3 incidents involving a legally owned full auto weapon. And that moves right into the "police don't have machine guns"...One of those incidents was a law officer using a department machine gun that he was legally allowed to use. Just not at all the way he used it. Most guns, depending on how they were made and local laws hold less than 10 rounds. If you're in a place that allows higher capacity maybe as many as 30. Much more isn't common, but is possible. So yes, you may be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but you'll be out in a few seconds. And usually anything past the first one isn't going where you want it to go. (Yes, I've tried, shot 1 was pretty good. They said I did well to get number 2 on the paper, and the backstop fortunately caught number 3 - It was good that was all I was allowed for that exercise. Could I have done better with practice? sure. But anything outside the target is pretty much a fail. Oh, and a huge percentage of regular hunting rifles are semi-auto. They just don't look "tactical" so the crazy people don't usually buy them. In some cases they have the exact same inner machinery as the ones everyone wants to ban. |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas and tanks for everyone! |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
I don't have access to my box right now so this copy is not mine, but Tolstoy's T68 is my favorite American card of him: He was a fine author I enjoy and I think a greatly interesting man and philosopher. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You know what it means, especially in the context of an abortion discussion. Stop pretending to be stupid. There are many words I don't like and wouldn't use to label things, but such is the world. Pro-life and pro-choice are both positive sounding brandings. In my little niche of the world, 'gun control' is a phrase to describe A) the use of a holster or sling with passive retention to ensure retention of my weapon or B) proper handling of my weapon and a muzzle brake to keep follow up rounds in the hitbox of my target. Does that mean I'm going to come here and pretend gun-control means lots of things and it isn't just legislation aimed at restricting firearms? I would score some virtue signaling and martyr points with some extremists on my side, but no. That would be ridiculous. Words have actual meanings, regardless of my feelings. That meaning is not whatever the hell I want it to be. This is a very bad argument. I am greatly amused that we had an intelligent discussion in this thread about both guns and abortion that was polite and earnest while people debated the actual issue. It is only now when 2 people are pretending they don't know what common-use terms mean that its derailing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. |
Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). |
I like my guns, some are valuable and its a place to invest. Not to mention, I live in a area where the nearest LEO is likely 10-20 minutes away. No one is around to hear any disturbance much less help.
+1 on the security system , I use SimplySafe at Home, and Ring at work. Both work well. One of several reasons schools are not well guarded, or can't afford to hire the security personnel, is the government is too busy handing out freebies to those who do not contribute. OR maybe they just have not diverted the funds to the appropriate necessities. You decide. Life begins at conception, but viable life does not. I am Switzerland when it comes to the abortion thing. Oh and so much talk about semantics of "pro xxxx" Why not : pro-choice= "pro-abortion" Pro-life= Anti-abortion. A FWIW dictionary.com defines militia : noun a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. Pretty good discord in this thread. Thomas |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Every thread needs a card. Anyone own this one? I'd like to find it.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...15a1f74507.jpg Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:24 AM. |