-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RonnieBird
No I don't Eric. It's a fundamental human right to own property and defend yourself, and until someone breaks the law I reject the suggestion that they should be punished for the potential or actual crimes of others.
Pre emptive legislation is the stuff of an Orwellian nightmare, and has no place whatever in a free country.
Fair enough and thanks for answering plainly, you can't escape the fact that this position causes children to needlessly die.
Do you think there should be speed limits on roads?
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RonnieBird
No I don't Eric. It's a fundamental human right to own property and defend yourself, and until someone breaks the law I reject the suggestion that they should be punished for the potential or actual crimes of others.
Pre emptive legislation is the stuff of an Orwellian nightmare, and has no place whatever in a free country.
Slaves were once classed as property too (in the nation that we're discussing). I suppose you would have been against the emancipation proclamation too?
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rudy gestede
That’s the exact point I’m making. They’re happy with prohibition except for the thing they get huge back handers on.
To me it’s nuts that it’s such a partisan issue. Think of all the absolute idiots and arse holes you know. Would anyone be happy for them to be able to own multiple guns?
Of course banning guns will help, it’s helped in every other country that’s done it.
People say career criminals will still get guns, yes they will just as they do in every country. But are these the people shooting up schools, malls, fairs, universities?
The only hope is the younger generation, many of whom have attended schools at a time when scholastic establishments have been targetted.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RonnieBird
No I don't Eric. It's a fundamental human right to own property and defend yourself, and until someone breaks the law I reject the suggestion that they should be punished for the potential or actual crimes of others.
Pre emptive legislation is the stuff of an Orwellian nightmare, and has no place whatever in a free country.
Who or what determines such human rights?
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heisenberg
You always say the same thing about WB/Gluey, but you end up replying to him. It's hard to ignore people sometimes (unless you actually have them on 'ignore', like a certain WB is).
Does that mean your days of stalking and making physical threats are over? It sounds like a win to me!
-
Re: Another mass shooting
And who decides what the limit is for protection? Should I be able to own a tank?
Is not owning a gun a punishment?
Is he against people taking drugs being punished?
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rudy gestede
And who decides what the limit is for protection?
God did when he wrote the murican constitution.
I'm just off out to buy some plutonium to protect my family.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
It seems that every generation gets put down by their predecessors who remember halcyon days and the world being a better place.
Refreshingly, it was interesting to hear Alan Johnson (a former postman, union boss and Home Secretary) being interviewed on Radio 4 yesterday when he stated that the fifties wasn't the peaceful heaven for him but which others go on about.
Anyway, whatever your politics or age it is a really interesting interview on several levels:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0007bjb
Thanks for posting that link, because there's no way I would have listened to the interview if you hadn't :thumbup:.
Always had a lot of time for Alan Johnson and, although I didn't agree with everything he said, that's more true now after listening to that.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
The ex-girlfriend of the Dayton murderer tells her chilling tale
https://medium.com/@_adeliajohnson_/...r-2b7f2d792b68
-
Re: Another mass shooting
The White Supremacy Virus by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (U.S. Representative)
There is a difference between white supremacists & white supremacy.
White supremacy is like a virus.
Supremacists are those who have been completely overcome by the disease, but supremacy - the virus - exists on a larger scale beyond just the infected. It also lays dormant.
White supremacy is often subconscious. & Clearly, our nation has not been inoculated. WS is our nation’s original sin; the driving logic of slavery, of Native genocide, of Jim Crow, of segregation, of mass incarceration, of “Send Her Back.”
It never went away. It was just dormant.
Healing ourselves of white supremacy will be hard. It will be hard because it requires us to confront *ourselves.*
We wish it was as simple as denouncing a white hood, a burnt cross, vile language. But we need to address where supremacy *begins,* not just where it ends.
Perhaps more than the obvious last steps of the supremacist,we must examine the nuance of their first steps.
That is a painful inquiry, bc for many, we may see familiarity in those first steps. And that familiarity is very difficult to see + admit. We’d rather not talk about it.
Recognizing white supremacy in ourselves - our institutions, our subconscious, our own past remarks or acts (no matter how consciously unintentional), is what makes the healing work ahead challenging.
But it is not impossible, and confronting it is the only way to move forward.
What this moment is asking of us is to discuss *white supremacy and racism* as much - or possibly more than - *white supremacists and racists.*
When we do that, I believe we will start to make progress.
But it is incredibly important that we recognize that perfectly normal, good people are capable of aiding racism & white supremacy.
Recognizing that is not about pillorying people. It’s about learning to recognize *the virus* & end an oppressive system designed to hurt us *all
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1159254426097467394 was
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
Brilliant post I've thought the same myself when you see unbalanced argument on many subjects, I believe as you say it's media driven ,selective interest,and political point scoring .
What do you make of Trump using the shootings for political point scoring?
Making a newly orphaned and injured baby return to the hospital so he could give a thumbs up photo op.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">From the First Lady’s twitter account, this appears to be the baby both of whose parents died shielding him from the El Paso shooter. The baby in question was discharged the day before and brought back for Trumps visit. Child is not id’d on <a href="https://twitter.com/FLOTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@flotus</a> account. But appears to... <a href="https://t.co/17L6XQROMS">pic.twitter.com/17L6XQROMS</a></p>— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) <a href="https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1159672304542126082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And releasing this video.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">My time spent in Dayton and El Paso with some of the greatest people on earth. Thank you for a job well done! <a href="https://t.co/TNVDGhxOpo">pic.twitter.com/TNVDGhxOpo</a></p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1159298817478414337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heisenberg
Slaves were once classed as property too (in the nation that we're discussing). I suppose you would have been against the emancipation proclamation too?
Why would you suppose that then ?
Slavery is hardly unique to the USA and slaves have always been those who were unable to defend themselves
-
Re: Another mass shooting
This is a pretty brutal takedown of Trump's baby photo op.
https://www.thecut.com/amp/2019/08/t...-shooting.html
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RonnieBird
Why would you suppose that then ?
Slavery is hardly unique to the USA and slaves have always been those who were unable to defend themselves
I'm just following your own logic.
You said that "it's a fundamental right to own property" - slaves were once property - you'd have been against the abolition of slavery since it's taking away your fundamental right to own property.
I'm slightly worried that you didn't tell me that I'm wrong.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lardy
Just shows how he lacks empathy imo. The man is a freak.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
Who or what determines such human rights?
Ah, you must read the US Constitution. They're "inalienable" rights granted by God.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Cartman
Fair enough and thanks for answering plainly, you can't escape the fact that this position causes children to needlessly die.
Do you think there should be speed limits on roads?
Different thing. No reason why there shouldn't be laws against using guns or anything else in a dangerous way.
A speed limit isn't banning cars is it ?
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heisenberg
I'm just following your own logic.
You said that "it's a fundamental right to own property" - slaves were once property - you'd have been against the abolition of slavery since it's taking away your fundamental right to own property.
I'm slightly worried that you didn't tell me that I'm wrong.
Slaves aren't property now are they ?
I'm not sure how you can compare holding a human being captive with owning a gun.
I own guns and in the past I've handled and used very heavy duty weaponry but I've never committed a crime with them or been irresponsible with them. The guns don't harm anyone unless used to do so by a human being, and that is who is responsible if anyone is harmed.
As far as what anyone might have said about slavery at the time when it was questioned, none of us can say if we're truthful.
It might seem obvious to us now that it's wrong, but you can't apply modern thinking to a different age, or vice versa.
Remember, being pro slavery was the default position of the establishment at the time and that the idea of abolishen was a controversial one at first. If you want me to guess, I'd expect that the people here who get angry about individualists or people questioning the State would be throwing similar stones at abolishenists as they do now at " climate change deniers ".
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RonnieBird
Ah, you must read the US Constitution. They're "inalienable" rights granted by God.
I think you should probably read the US constitution, god isn't mentioned once
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RonnieBird
Different thing. No reason why there shouldn't be laws against using guns or anything else in a dangerous way.
A speed limit isn't banning cars is it ?
You have hit the nail on the head. There are laws in place to prevent cars becoming unnecessarily dangerous. We also don't let people drive a car if they are more likely to be a danger to other people when using it, i.e. if they don't possess a license that proves they are save to use it, if they don't possess valid insurance (I imagine gun ownership would go down if you had to take out insurance to pay for any 'accidents' that happen) or if they are deemed to be medically unsafe to drive (medically unsafe to own a gun?).
It is bizarre that there are some background checks in store but not at 'gun shows' and that the resale market has almost no legal restrictions placed on it.
There are lots of options for the USA here and yet they will probably sit on their hands.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RonnieBird
Slaves aren't property now are they ? No they're not, which is the point that I've been making all along that you seem to be purposely avoiding. Slaves are no longer property because enough people believed that it wasn't a fundamental right for people to own that particular property.
I'm not sure how you can compare holding a human being captive with owning a gun. You know exactly how I can compare them as at some point in the not too distant past, both slaves and guns have been considered a form of property and one of your pro-gun arguments is that it's a fundamental right to own property, which means that you either condone owning all forms of property or you get to pick and choose like the rest of us what we deem to be appropriate. Hence, the emancipation proclamation and slavery being abolished.
I own guns and in the past I've handled and used very heavy duty weaponry but I've never committed a crime with them or been irresponsible with them. The guns don't harm anyone unless used to do so by a human being, and that is who is responsible if anyone is harmed. Well done for not harming anyone with one of your guns. If only there was a way of possibly controlling which human beings cab get a hold of these guns to possibly lower the chances of them being used to commit a crime or be "irresponsible with them" (irresponsible, like committing mass murder, irresponsible
As far as what anyone might have said about slavery at the time when it was questioned, none of us can say if we're truthful.
It might seem obvious to us now that it's wrong, but you can't apply modern thinking to a different age, or vice versa. Congratulations, this is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. At some point in time it was deemed appropriate to be able to own another human being by a large proportion of people. In present day, a large proportion of people deem it appropriate to be able to own automatic rifles.... it doesn't make it right and perhaps in the future, it may seem obvious to everyone how wrong it was to think that way too.
Remember, being pro slavery was the default position of the establishment at the time and that the idea of abolishen was a controversial one at first. You mean, like the idea of gun control now?
If you want me to guess, I'd expect that the people here who get angry about individualists or people questioning the State would be throwing similar stones at abolishenists as they do now at " climate change deniers ". I haven't got a clue what you're talking about, sorry.
.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Heisenberg
.
No, you've got that completely wrong. It's not that owning property and the right to do so which was changed, it's that the definition of what property is that was changed. The point was that a human being could no longer be considered property.
Of course there already are laws to prevent convicted felons or mentally ill people from owning or having guns, which is obviously a good idea.
You take me up on the use of the word "irresponsible " but I said " committed a crime OR been irresponsible ". No reasonable interpretation of that as a description of mass murder is possible . Of course you have to be responsible with guns in that you don't leave them lying round where the kids can get hold of them or anything.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
City123
I think you should probably read the US constitution, god isn't mentioned once
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "
Which is actually from the Declaration of Independence , but is considered in law to comprise a preamble to the USC, and taken as the legal definition of "inalienable "
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Also , since the USC acknowledges and includes State Constitutions, it is reasonable to infer the intention to include God, since each and every State Constitution, ( even California and New York !) does in fact reference God.
-
Re: Another mass shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RonnieBird
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "
Which is actually from the Declaration of Independence , but is considered in law to comprise a preamble to the USC, and taken as the legal definition of "inalienable "
So it isn't in the US constitution
Its ok to admit you made a mistake