Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As seen from the eyes of this incurable cynic. . I am reminded of the definition of middle age as being when you still believe you will feel better after a few days...It's fine that you still believe that things are going to work out fine, but that may not make it so.
As seen from the eyes of this incurable cynic. . I am reminded of the definition of middle age as being when you still believe you will feel better after a few days...It's fine that you still believe that things are going to work out fine, but that may not make it so.
I don't believe that things are necessarily going to work out fine. That would indeed make me naive. I've just been reading about Justinian: believe me, all through history there have been people who are not just ruthless, but who enjoy killing. The fascination with guns is not so hard.
Reading these posts is even more reason for despair. People are so eager to rationalize what they want into what is "right," when any rational look at the matter is proof that guns and basically immoral except in the hands of police and the military, and even there they need close supervision.
The thing these rationalizers say most often is that removing guns from the public will not eliminate crime. Can't people see the slimy, dishonest fallacy in such statements? Of course it won't, and removing guns will also mean that only criminals have them -- but they won't have so many.
A shooting spree, something that gets more and more common as it gets publicity, is really a form of suicide, where the suicide wants to "go out" in a big way -- to be important for a moment. Many gun crimes are similar -- they are subconscious efforts to get the police to help them commit suicide. Even the ordinary male suicide, generally done with a gun with no harm to others, would not happen if the gun were not there. Depression is an episodic thing -- it comes and goes -- so that if a gun is handy, the suicide happens while if killing oneself is more difficult, the person often has time to have the mood pass.
I know gun control works; I live in a society where criminals do not have guns, because the enforcement is systematic and smugglers are generally caught and any guns around are soon reported and seized. The population is very happy with this state of affairs. Crimes still occur, and domestic fights still occur, but you don't have the violent stuff, you don't have the fight deteriorating into a shooting, and you don't have people walking into a school or shopping center shooting people at random.
You certainly have the right to believe and express that (First Amendment), but I just as fiirmly believe that the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is all that keeps us all from being enslaved (2nd).
"Justify"? What is there to justify? Somebody shot someone so nobody should have guns? You're the one who needs to do some justifying here. It's called "hasty generalization."
You certainly have the right to believe and express that (First Amendment), but I just as fiirmly believe that the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is all that keeps us all from being enslaved (2nd).
Don't be silly. Were an autocracy to take over the U.S., all the guns in the world would not do you any good. What keeps the U.S. relatively free is the commitment of the ruling class to it, and the fact that it would be almost impossible for any smaller group to overcome this -- it is close to a religion in the States.
The Second Amendment is an unfortunate source of considerable mischief, because people read it trying to find what they want to find, and so of course they find it. In its historical context, it had nothing to do with private guns, but with preventing the Federal Government from taking over state militias (which were at that time seen as a force that could protect the states from federal dominance --it hasn't worked out that way).
The Supreme Court has rule that way, and they are the body created in the Constitution who interpret it.
Liberal is liberal and conservative is conservative and never the twain shall meet (with abject apologies to Rudyard Kipling who wouldn't understand why today 's liberals exist).
Liberal is liberal and conservative is conservative and never the twain shall meet (with abject apologies to Rudyard Kipling who wouldn't understand why today 's liberals exist).
When it comes to guns, I guess I am a liberal, although in fact I would call myself a "main street Republican."
To me guns are a moral issue, and, in fact, although it's hard to do, I would separate the question of whether one should have guns from the question of whether the state should restrict or ban them. I also have a major problem with the idea of the state enforcing moral positions, although here I have less problem finding a standard -- the state should have a clear interest over and above the moral part. In the case of guns that interest lies in public safety.
I urge against guns; I think their very possession is immoral. They are instruments of death.
On the other hand, I would see the legal elimination of private ownership of guns, not for any moral reason, but because I think the public safety would be greatly improved.
When it comes to guns, I guess I am a liberal, although in fact I would call myself a "main street Republican."
To me guns are a moral issue, and, in fact, although it's hard to do, I would separate the question of whether one should have guns from the question of whether the state should restrict or ban them. I also have a major problem with the idea of the state enforcing moral positions, although here I have less problem finding a standard -- the state should have a clear interest over and above the moral part. In the case of guns that interest lies in public safety.
I urge against guns; I think their very possession is immoral. They are instruments of death.
On the other hand, I would see the legal elimination of private ownership of guns, not for any moral reason, but because I think the public safety would be greatly improved.
Morality. The last bastion of religious zealots intent on having their wait.
Public safety is not a right enumerated in the Constitution. The government is not responsible for you safety. You are...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I am reminded of the definition of middle age as being when you still believe you will feel better after a few days...It's fine that you still believe that things are going to work out fine, but that may not make it so.
)
