Scott Mayers

You are a fraud here. I ADDED WITH PURPOSE: " (me) and others..." Of course I added this because YOU think this argument ONLY applies to YOU. [How do you force the size to be larger than 14 point, btw? I don't have this option and HTML option has been removed.] YOU did not start this thread. I already told you that I mistook him before for being religious when he responded elsewhere that he was an atheist. So your argument of me being irrelevant here does not hold up. I am CHALLENGING you to be the "Christian" you CLAIM but I believe that you are a FRAUD!! You require PROVING something here. You are arguing for a NON-Catholic position and so can also be irrelevant for arguing OUTSIDE of that particular belief. The thread is about the "Trinity". You require first understanding the origins of this and why the Catholic has a rational justification for it. If you can't argue from within EVEN IF you disagree, you lack credibility. You are also against the 'victim' mode and are being HYPOCRITICAL given the arguments OF the 'victimhood' Identity politics asserts the same argument of you telling me I'm irrelevant here. If you are NOT the 'victim', they hold, you have NO capacity to understand nor be invited to the conversation from without. You are saying the same thing but replacing their own particular status with Christianity.

AND, given what I said, sorry for the common 'meme' today that I've always happen to think: I don't ask WHY someone like this kid shot up a school, but WHY NOT in this kind of climate of people unwilling to give two shits about reasoning. If emotions are all that matters, YOUR right-wing politics will ALWAYS win for simply existing.....even if only one in a million! This kid may be a 'victim' of our present political climate to which EVERYONE is guilty. That is itself an argument against guns that you should be able to recognize. Since it won't change, do you think we should simply accept 'terrorism' as something we should adapt to or lose for being the passive bystander who gets shot for merely not HAVING a gun? Should we arm the children with weapons now too?

I'm noticing that minds don't seem be alterable. I think many often need time to let some logical arguments sink in because things like politics are EMOTIONALLY based with higher priority. However, I'm feeling at a loss online when this is appears universal. Its making the Internet as a whole useless when the only 'functional' means it serves is to 'entertain' or act as honeypots for data gatherers intent on only DETERMINING WHO has what opinions and HOW they can use this to attempt to manipulate us. If there is no sincere 'forum' for honesty we are ALL in serious trouble for ALL mediums with closure now! That is, we appear to be 'censored' now with success. This should be a separate thread but relates here in that the gun issue will NEVER change. But GIVEN you are 'conservative', do you not think this JUSTIFIES the 'left' to simply IGNORE rational arguments either and why the present irrational Identity Politics of them are SO successful now? I don't approve of the Identity politics but it appears everyone is giving up on even TRYING to REASON when no amount of it matters in politics. IF POWER is all that matters, you are feeding the fuel of your enemies to simply recognize that they too must resort to it without 'forum' of the people. I'm disgusted and somewhat depressed on this. It's sad.

Please respond to my original questions to you. It appears the relevant questions I've asked were dishonestly skipped over by you. We resolved that you admitted the U.S. foundation for guns is NOT about 'virtue' but to 'power' and, you added, 'economics' (a form of power). If power then is not needed to be respectful of any virtue, how do you justify any of your arguments unless you are simply repeating yourself with no flexibility. That is, is there any argument by ANYONE here who could possibly move you to change your mind whether logically or emotionally (as in 'compassion')? [To administration: For whatever reason, my options are limited in capacity to altering format and be able to add external content I had been able to before. It appears though that certain others here have that capacity uniquely. Is this functioning restricted to some members but not others? ]

YES. National Defense family (and why I lived in DC/Virginia) as a kid. I used FNC-1 (semi-automatic) and FNC-2 (full) among other things, sub-machine guns and grenades. Examples FN C1 and C2 below: I never learned to hunt anything but humans! [Not a hunter!] But this is all irrelevant.

Bull. The equalizing comparisons are not correct. Assault military rifles use larger rounds and have mechanisms in them for making it available to be fully automatic. The only real difference (if the design is kept in sync) is to the barrel's thickness (to absorb heat and keep it from warping) and to the pin in a device that stops a breach block. So it is relatively easy to alter the single shot versions by various means. REGARDLESS, the guns versus the other objects are designed specifically as tools to KILL! All the others have essential functions external to mere harm. A pen, for that matter, is just as dangerous as a weapon. One advantage of guns is their capacity to be successful AND potentially act 'humane' by killing them more quickly. Another point I've mentioned before in similar arguments that I likely would have brought up with you until you cowarded out of my competition earlier here: If guns should be allowed in comparing dominoes of 'weapons' that harm all the way down to the fist, you have to except the logic for even more destructive weapons. For instance, if carrying guns is argued to reduce risk by mutual fears that prevent each other from acting, why not have individuals be allowed to where bombs they can wear? If we all had such a right, wouldn't this too reduce the threats for fear of mutual annihilation?

You have NO 'logic' here, Betsy. Nor do you have 'scientific' capacity. That leaves nothing but questions to WHY you think it even matters at all to say anything here. I don't believe that you are even being honest nor intend to. Those religious, whether it be Christianity or not, AFFECTS me and others in destructive ways politically because it is just such moronic thinking that is dooming this world. I'll tell you what....if you are sincere, tell us who YOU are. I'm beginning to smell the stench of dirty socks and honey here.

Speak only for yourself. How do YOU not see that quoting a book about someone asserting authority lacks meaning when WE (1) ...do not have ANYONE today living who has the capacity to prove they are a Natural 'god' on Earth? If you cannot 'see' a god, demonstrate this directly to others PRIOR to demanding they pretend it to be true. It's not enough to dictate one 'pretend' (== make-believe) in order to see it. Anyone can say this about anything. So, (2) ...are not willing to play make-belief nor confuse the game as though it were identical with the reality? (3)...can show how more modern books and other media are more compelling and clear than a collection of books from ancient times that lacked a printing press and film and audio recording ....like Harry Potter? Is Harry Potter real? You actually CAN 'see' the characters, follow the language with less doubt, and if IN DOUBT, question the author should you have the fortune to directly meet her. Even if we suspend our sense of reality to pretend it, do we then KNOW that the actual story is not simply a story?

Then you admit that 'power' is NOT 'virtuous'?

I certainly don't (on the 'culture' question). But do you then not agree that all other countries SHOULD act to build their own arsenals to empower themselves too being that weapons are what make you virtuous? That is, are you then a fan of 'terrorists' if only to give you the justification to practice your 'culture' of using guns? Certainly if each individual has the virtuous 'right' to hold a firearm WITHIN your country, it equally holds with whole countries that act as independent beings desiring to hold the same 'virtue'. Iran and North Korea and the Taliban, etcetera SHOULD be rightfully arming themselves with the wishes of America as a whole. Or does the hypocrisy end at America's borders uniquely?

Yes, the 'malaise' that you too like to dwell in here by Canadians. Maybe you need to be expelled from the U.S. for having the same Canadian affliction. I think we infected you.

I have an interesting suggestion for the U.S. to fix this issue. The main reason it is hard to remove is because they cannot get all the States to sign a new Amendment to overthrow it, right? BUT, one can argue that IF the 'interpretations' of those States signing one way or the other disagree to the meaning of it with CONTRADICTORY interpretations, this should be justified to overthrow that law for lacking meaning without a need for further signatures. It at least should force them to rewrite it.

Your own interpretation of history is that some 'culture' of guns is what made and maintains America's virtue of existence. Given we are discussing the 2nd Amendment, you falsely interpret it to justify this belief when its purpose was only to PREVENT others with more powerful weapons to use it to enslave the masses, precisely what the Conservative view philosophically endorses uniquely. That is, you managed to flip the intent of that Amendment to prevent authoritarian rule to become a justification FOR authoritarian rule. This makes the Amendment useless for having contradictory interpretations that are both held as valid. Either it needs to be dumped or requires some rewording to specify what its unique intent is.

So you really WANT us to immigrate there? Why not entice us to be extended 'states' and unite with you instead?

You are incorrect. Why would you merely assume that the United States represents ONLY POWER to rule? The gun is only a tool (as even used to argue by Conservatives). If the U.S. is only justified because they have default power based on some weapon, then the rest of the world REQUIRES destroying them FOR being such a bully. I don't believe this is true personally. This is precisely the beliefs that the extremes outside of America justify going against them. But this also PROVES my point about the intent of Conservatives to prefer governments to only serve as war-mechanisms and personal police of their wealthy estates.

Now what is your functional suggestion? What do you think we can or should do to fix this?

I was adding an edit to this but will do it here now. Your belief is ONLY a right-wing one of the Americans,....not ALL Americans. The specific intent of American 'conservatives' is to destroy democratic rights by taking away the kind of power that the second amendment served. You (and/or conservatives) are intentionally trying to bankrupt ALL governments because they believe that governments should be the right of the fortunate AT PRESENT because they believe that Nature (and/or God) RIGHTFULLY favors them specifically for their strict self interest and LUCK. They PRETEND to be individualistic but only argue this to empower their own already empowered fortunes from being threatened. The interest is NOT to ensure the individual can protect themselves arbitrarily. It is like a giant who, knowing they have no risk at present for being a giant by default, suggests that no laws are needed to prevent bullying based on physical largeness. They believe that giants are by default 'giant' because the Gods favor them 'rightfully' and so anything they DO is by default, 'right'. With guns, they are the gun industry owners AND the ones who HAVE the fortune of the biggest such guns to use against others. So by merely asserting themselves as DEFAULT 'righteous' for BEING in power because of guns and god, they demand society to respect the gun-owner in general as 'righteous' with exception only to the meek and weak. They believe they OWN guns BECAUSE they are most powerful rather than that they are most powerful BECAUSE they own guns. This is the very kind of reasoning the Loyalists of Kings argue their 'right' to withhold guns from the original Americans. So it goes against the 2nd Amendment's purpose to empower the people. Today's conservatives are just now the Kings who have confidence that they are not threatened by any individual from having a gun because they hold an arsenal of them without a risk of being overthrown UNLESS some government removes their present fortune as giants.

I agree. But I'm asking you if we require giving up? Why are you here? Are you just here to make fun of us? Do you have a functional suggestion (other than the potential fact of our being polite and submissive)?

Your country had the 2nd Amendment as a counter against Federal-level governments from utilizing laws to remove the means for which its citizens can be able to overthrow it in light of Britain's behavior to submit the power of their colonies by making it illegal for its citizens to police themselves FROM the colonies versus some King's palace a continent away. The 'STATES' formed to operate bottom-up. As such, the 2nd Amendment was intended to enable State-level governments a right to form localized militias NOT governed by the forces of a Federal-level control, ....especially one not interested in its citizens concerns. The British authorities originally represented the intoleration of the colonies to act independent of British rule. Then later, as States were still being formed, newer ones wanted to be sure they were not territories of a Federal policing that prevented local means of empowerment. The Amendment EXCUSED by the right-wing politics today in the U.S. are about empowering those WITH present economic wealth as a means to Federal-level controls to make turn it into a war-only mechanism with no social-level interests. To them, while they prefer NO government at all, using the power when in government office is to utilize the various tactics to destroy it from the inside out. One such convenient means they came up with is to make war itself a capitalistic industry which includes weapon-making as the most significant factor. They aren't interested in empowering the individual from totalitarian rule but to PREVENT the 'slave' classes from uprising against themselves. The ones who OWN the war-making-machine BECOME the empowered rulers by the convenient virtue of treating it just as another industry of social improvement. This is a con, not a sincere means to invest in societal well-being.

The 'collective' is incorrect by her interpretation. The 'cult' is more like it. We treat the significant 'individual' as some cultural-defined member, not a sincere individual. The 'collective' is her interpretation that anything left-wing is 'cultural Marxism' (something I take issue with against Jordan Peterson and his fans.)

What are we supposed to do then? ... give up trying? If we have to merely accept such factors then it is OPEN for us all to reduce all our logical concerns to race, sex, religious, or in general, "cultural" types of arguments as an appeal. If I want to fight a traffic ticket, I should appeal to the court that the one giving the ticket was of a different race than I am, not to whether I was driving poorly. Do you think there is any hope? [I am presently trying to seek for a video on a noon-show here in Saskatoon relevant to this case and I discovered that Hedley (the band) was charged with being sexually inappropriate. The JUNOS thus cancelled them from future considerations. This is an example of our fucking arrogance here to think the relevance of something logical (as to the entertainment value of some band) has to take into consideration the behaviors of the band's personal 'culture' apart from this. It should be no surprise that some rock and roll band is going to be partying with inappropriate behavior. How has this any relevance to the virtue of the music?]

No it hasn't. In the above News and At Issue, they presented Trudeau's Parliamentary response to a "recognition and implementation of Aboriginal rights" concerning this. My contrast about the vigil of Boushie versus the recent Florida shootings demonstrates the problem. The Boushie vigils appealed to some emotional disgust of injustice against Aboriginals uniquely and presents proof of our bias here. The Florida vigil is UNIVERSALLY an emotional disgust because it appeals to everyone's concern, not some race. While the protest has cooled off, the logical argument is still not being addressed when Trudeau APPEALS to the emotional factors by asserting new changes FOR the Aboriginals uniquely. This makes this political issue here 'culturally biased', not a political appeal to 'rational' differences that is at issue. In fact, if anything, Trudeau and all other politicians should be addressing the ERROR of the Aboriginals to think this case is about racial bias at all. But he and other Canadian politicians WANT laws that are race-based (as with sex-based and religious-based, etc. too). This is my disappointment.

Here is the podcast of the "At Issue" conversation: https://podcast-a.akamaihd.net/mp3/podcasts/atissue-wK6Edh9w-20180215.mp3

AT ISSUE of the CBC National is speaking on this NOW: