'Could We Blame Lack of Religion and the Liberal Culture of Death?'
- Thread starter washingtonyrk
- Start date
dave_rhino
Closed Account
I do actually agree, slightly.
-----------
Was that from a comedy sketch? Fucking hell...
-----------
Was that from a comedy sketch? Fucking hell...
Philbert
Banned
Hey, I need to vent here....AAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!
There, I feel a little better.
Why does a possibility always end up being treated as a probability?????
Take a million college students, and say guns are for sale in every kiosk everywhere.
And they are cheap, have the right amount of blinking lights and ringtones to appeal to young people.
Is that a given that most would have body ripping, organ smashing, God-awful noise making, "don't want you in my room with that" objects ? Cigarettes are legal most places, so is hard drink, yet there are lots who don't want the stuff (cigs and booze) in their immediate sphere .
Guns wouldn't be exactly in everyones pocket and hand, and being waved around.
We have some idiots always, for the rest of us to practice on; keeping their stupidity from affecting us directly by application of community opinion and direct nasal contact. (Give'm some serious shit, or kick their asses if needed)
Life goes on, and if things get too difficult to control, something gets done.
I always carried a firearm in New Orleans, for various reasons; but when I got angry, or a little buzz on, the firearm was not an option...not touching, no playing around with it; and once when I got hit by a car on my Shadow 1100, I was so mad I dented his car hood with my helmet and scared the shit outa him. (His fault, and I hate getting knocked off my bike.
)
Never once thought about taking out my Beretta; so, I think gun carrying is for those who really want to deal with all the trouble it takes to have a firearm on them, and the nuisence it truly is. One or two is all that's needed around, to keep the lid on when something extreme happens.
I don't envision Tombstone or Dodge City ...
:2 cents:
There, I feel a little better.
Why does a possibility always end up being treated as a probability?????
Take a million college students, and say guns are for sale in every kiosk everywhere.
And they are cheap, have the right amount of blinking lights and ringtones to appeal to young people.
Is that a given that most would have body ripping, organ smashing, God-awful noise making, "don't want you in my room with that" objects ? Cigarettes are legal most places, so is hard drink, yet there are lots who don't want the stuff (cigs and booze) in their immediate sphere .
Guns wouldn't be exactly in everyones pocket and hand, and being waved around.
We have some idiots always, for the rest of us to practice on; keeping their stupidity from affecting us directly by application of community opinion and direct nasal contact. (Give'm some serious shit, or kick their asses if needed)
Life goes on, and if things get too difficult to control, something gets done.
I always carried a firearm in New Orleans, for various reasons; but when I got angry, or a little buzz on, the firearm was not an option...not touching, no playing around with it; and once when I got hit by a car on my Shadow 1100, I was so mad I dented his car hood with my helmet and scared the shit outa him. (His fault, and I hate getting knocked off my bike.
)Never once thought about taking out my Beretta; so, I think gun carrying is for those who really want to deal with all the trouble it takes to have a firearm on them, and the nuisence it truly is. One or two is all that's needed around, to keep the lid on when something extreme happens.
I don't envision Tombstone or Dodge City ...
:2 cents:
No comedy, I assure you.
Like I said, people who were not born nor raised 40 years in the past in the US think these incidents as "abominable", "dangerous" or "bizzare".
To simple folks like me (and there are millions of us) - it was everyday life. No body thought twice about hanging guns in their cars or trucks. Nobody thought twice about going duck hunting with rifles. Nobody thought twice about enrolling their kids in shooting competitions.
Because we all knew and understood the responsibilities and consequences associated with our rights and freedoms. We knew guns were useful tools but that the misuse of those tools brought about terrible consequences.
In my youth, if I misbehaved - I was simply turned over to my parents.
In today's youth, if you do wrong, the cops take you to jail.
It may not seem like a 'big difference' to some folks (even my 20-some-year-old kids think so) - but to old codgers like me, it speaks volumes. In my day, parents had authority (and the moral responsibility for vested authority!). Today we have next to no authority, which is why they have to call the police to control the kids.
Child Protective Service has stripped parents of authority. Children are taught at school to call CPS if they are spanked by parents. Apparently, teachers cannot recognize the decline of their own authority in the decline of parental authority.
cheers,
PS: There is a lot moreto America than MTV, Hollywood and her big cities.
Actually ...
The NRA is pro-background check. The NRA is pro-many things that align themselves with real "gun control."
The problem is the liberal advocates who pass laws and then do not enforce them, in the hope to get more laws passed to the point of gun elimination. Instant background checks are a reality in many states. But they aren't implemented in others because they would actually reduce violent offenses, which are statistics that work against the anti-gun lobby.
Lose-lose and kinda sad. I want my freedom, even though I don't own a gun and probably never will.
Some people just do need religion to behave. Kinda sad they can't realize that responsibility comes with freedom. And because of their abuse, we all lose.
The NRA is pro-background check. The NRA is pro-many things that align themselves with real "gun control."
The problem is the liberal advocates who pass laws and then do not enforce them, in the hope to get more laws passed to the point of gun elimination. Instant background checks are a reality in many states. But they aren't implemented in others because they would actually reduce violent offenses, which are statistics that work against the anti-gun lobby.
Lose-lose and kinda sad. I want my freedom, even though I don't own a gun and probably never will.
And that's why most of the anti-gun lobby hate instant background checks. Because it works and it would reduce statistics (as it has done in several states that have implemented them).
In other words, like a good American who is aware that responsibility comes with freedom, the right to bear arms means you shoulder the burden of responsibility with that right. Frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more killings in the US -- especially once you take inner-city violence out of the statistics.
Of course. But we're talking about the US TV media, the most racist, sexist and narrow-minded institution on the planet. The only reason I put up with their 98% BS is because I recognize they are sensational as we have a private media which, by its very nature, caters to advertising. The other 2% they do is in the public interest, which is not possible with state controlled/run media.
So I just tune it out.
The reality is that for every one person who "flies off the handle," we have tens of thousands of people who are responsible. In fact, that is the general statistic and nature of a truly free, capitalist society -- roughly 1:10,000 are homeless, roughly 1:10,000 kill, roughly 1:10,000 blah, blah, blah.
So for each 1 person who does not accept responsibility, we have 9,999 others who do. So does it make sense to penalize and take away the rights of the overwhelming majority, because an insignificant minority is not responsible?
Same old bullshit. I haven't heard anyone calling for gun control except as consequence to the overwhelming call for more firepower on the part of the gun enthusiasts. maybe I could respect the pro-gun camp if they weren't full of shit and trying to slip their agenda by people that they think are stupid and then plead the martyr. Isn't the point supposed to be upholding the constitutional right to own guns? which we all have and that hasn't been infringed... But the very first thing said is "this wouldn't have happened if more people had guns" so they are calling for more guns, more situations to use them and less judgment about when to use them. whereas the so called anti-gun people are merely saying that we should not do that- In other words that we shouldn't pass any new policies on guns and that we should uphold and enforce current gun laws, which would be a conservative viewpoint, instead of a liberal viewpoint which is being expressed by the pro(liferation of)gun camp that is initiating offensive tactics on setting gun precedent.
Also I find your comment Prof referring to the homeless as an "irresponsible" "Insignificant minority" to be rather offensive and extremely short sided, especially compared in the light of touching upon the issues of mental illness, which is widely neglected and lacking in treatment, and throwing people out in the streets to freeze and starve (which is also significantly attributed to the former condition) in the context of a free and flourishing society.
Ironically, I have a feeling that a reversal of those conditions would vastly improve the reduction of the crimes that guns have always failed to.
Look, i'm not calling for gun restriction, I'm just "shooting down" the gun lobbey whos the one that's bringing it on themselves by making the issue about guns, which it really isn't at all and shouldn't be.
Also I find your comment Prof referring to the homeless as an "irresponsible" "Insignificant minority" to be rather offensive and extremely short sided, especially compared in the light of touching upon the issues of mental illness, which is widely neglected and lacking in treatment, and throwing people out in the streets to freeze and starve (which is also significantly attributed to the former condition) in the context of a free and flourishing society.
Ironically, I have a feeling that a reversal of those conditions would vastly improve the reduction of the crimes that guns have always failed to.
Look, i'm not calling for gun restriction, I'm just "shooting down" the gun lobbey whos the one that's bringing it on themselves by making the issue about guns, which it really isn't at all and shouldn't be.
Can be be intellectual, instead of over-assuming?
Have you ever talked to police officers? They have a very insightful viewpoint, including their preference of responsible, armed citizens.
Again, talk to some police officers, especially those in states that don't enforce the laws. Never seen people so frustrated by citizens and their leadership.
You demonize my statement. I said that it's a minority statistic to be 1 in 10,000. Some is always due to irresponsibility. Yes, I know about mental illness -- especially undiagnosed. And then that would fall on the irresponsibility of his/her family, and not the individual.
Did you ever even stop to think that "irresponsibility" is a community issue, of and by the people who should care for individuals, and not some greater "socialist" problem that pushes such an agenda? That's what us true, American Libertarians believe. We believe people should care about each other, individually, and not push for some grand, controlling, over-reaching federal government to herd us like dumb sheep.
Don't be dumb sheep.
Which is why 99.9% of the assumptions I hear about the ACLU or NRA is complete ignorance, based on what they hear in the media.
Me? My money goes to the EFF (along with the UNCF). Most people have never heard of the EFF.
Dude, could you please stop before you say things like ... "I could respect the pro-gun camp if they weren't full of shit."
Have you ever talked to police officers? They have a very insightful viewpoint, including their preference of responsible, armed citizens.
No, more judgement. In each and every case where citizens were armed, perpetrators were put down within minutes. When citizens were not armed, an onslaught ensued.
Because there are many laws in many states purposely not being enforced to further a political agenda. There is absolutely no reason for not having instant background checks.
Again, talk to some police officers, especially those in states that don't enforce the laws. Never seen people so frustrated by citizens and their leadership.
And I find your generalizations and demonizations an insult to my intelligence. Why can't you debate like an intellectual, instead of talking as if what you say is the only viewpoint?
You demonize my statement. I said that it's a minority statistic to be 1 in 10,000. Some is always due to irresponsibility. Yes, I know about mental illness -- especially undiagnosed. And then that would fall on the irresponsibility of his/her family, and not the individual.
Did you ever even stop to think that "irresponsibility" is a community issue, of and by the people who should care for individuals, and not some greater "socialist" problem that pushes such an agenda? That's what us true, American Libertarians believe. We believe people should care about each other, individually, and not push for some grand, controlling, over-reaching federal government to herd us like dumb sheep.
Don't be dumb sheep.
1 in 10,000 -- sorry, don't see it.
You should really go to a NRA meeting. Just like the right should go to a ACLU meeting. All you get in the US TV media is that 5% of controversy these organizations run into, and not the 95% of real, Constitutional protection they provide.
Which is why 99.9% of the assumptions I hear about the ACLU or NRA is complete ignorance, based on what they hear in the media.
Me? My money goes to the EFF (along with the UNCF). Most people have never heard of the EFF.
Similar threads
