pinko
-
Posts
1,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by pinko
-
-
Incorrect. The majority make the law, the minoity publish their opinion.
I beg to differ with you. It isn't unusual for a variety of dissenting opinions with no particular opinion presenting a majority view. Go back to school.
-
I find no humour in it other than correcting your mistake(s).
Neverthelass, it is the majority opinion and has the full weight of the SCOTUS behind it.
As do the dissenting opinions.
-
I appreciate that civility.
We can disagree. I have my opinion because I believe it to be right and it isn't because I haven't given it any thought or am just parroting others or following an ideological line. As an individual I hold conservative values and mores but am a firm believer that government has no role forcing my views on others through laws or outright force. Politically then, I am for small, limited government.
The governments view of people is that they need entitlements, not because they cannot look after themselves, but because they need a balance of force. In a democracy, the voter to them is fickle and cannot be trusted. We have to divest ourselves of the political view of their citizens and realize that most of us are quite rational and able to run our own lives. The left seems to me to follow that government view of their fellow citizens. They are fickle and not to be trusted.
If we understand human nature at all we must realize they attempt to improve their lives as best they can. You believe your life would be improved with controls on others that you yourself don't need. There certainly does have to be rules and proper social behavior. But if we are normal people we learn proper social behavior fairly early in our lives. Not in school but in our life's experience. School does not prepare us for changing social conditions. It indoctrinates us on how we are supposed to behave at all times and towards everyone. All times and all people are not the same. Some people have criminal tendencies but we are "taught" to treat all people equally. The result is an inability to distinguish who deserves your friendship and respect. Everyone is the same. Everyone is equal. Initially, you can take that point of view but it should become apparent to you early in your relationship with anyone the other person's character. We are taught to "always" treat everyone equally. Our experience tells us that some people should not be. The type of senseless behavior such as is the case in this shooting spree tells me that education has overridden our ability to make judgment on others. It seems we need an expert but the experts are the same people designing our education.
Basically we must be aware of the unintended consequences of government. Their point of view regarding their citizens is tainted and they are only there for a short period not looking at the long term consequences and more concerned with their legacy and what they did to for the people.
Thank-you for articulating your position. I am a lefty but don't pretend to speak for all lefties. There may be positions you adopt that I may agree with from time to time. I see government as a catalyst reflecting a variety of views representative of a cross section of society. I see the need for government providing for basic needs and infrastructure without which society wouldn't function. With respect to education I take a different position from you in that I see that education is exactly what is required in such circumstances. Your word structure seems to treat government as an inanimate object which is to be viewed with suspicion whereas I see government and its various institutions as necessary elements in a free and democratic society.
-
Fair enough. However, if the intruder has a gun and you don't, your eaction would be hopeless. You would be toast. If the intruder knew there was a gun in your house, he may be more hesitant to break in. Evil doers will ALWAYS have a means to get a gun, and they will never be registered.
I live in a quiet neighbourhood and am not the least bit concerned about a home invasion. I am not suggesting my home can't be invaded. What I am saying is that I won't occupy my time with the possibility of such an event.
-
Yah - I produce you...look at your agressive action...it smacks of a typically conditioned confrontationalist.
Yes I am aggressive and make no apology for it.
-
No one is suggesting you have to be armed. Most people won't be in a sane society. The point is that the the individual should make the choice of when he feels he should be armed or not armed.
You may have a point there. I prefer not to live my life in fear.
-
They are reactions and not necessarily rational decisions. Choosing to fight would perhaps be better with some preparation, otherwise it is not much more than flailing about. Choosing flight would also improve with some preparation.
Let's say you are up against a fire. You choose to fight because you have a fire extinguisher. You choose to flee because you don't or the fire is too big. And...you have a planned escape route.
In my younger days I became familiar with street fighting and am well aware of the consequences flowing from such situations. I also have some knowledge of reading people and conflict resolution.
The analogies you make are good ones nontheless.
-
Namecalling really upsets me. I'm telling.
That's it? You're arsenal is empty?
A sensitive guy maybe needs some kleenex.
-
Trying to stay away from the gun debate, just sayin that there are situations where the "right" to do something can reach a point where it effectively eliminates the "right" not to do something. The idea that everyone should have the right to walk around armed is one of those situations where that principal applies.
The idea that everyone having access to assault weapons in order to ensure a country's freedom is a peculiarly American idea that doesn't seem to apply in most other civilized countries. Personally, I don't feel the need to walk around armed all day in order to ensure my personal safety fits my idea of freedom. Quite the contrary.
Well said.
-
You could inform the intruder that what he is doing is not only illegal but irrational. You do not believe in violence, I'm sure. You may have to go into a crazed rage to get yourself to put up a fight.
I could and may if placed in such a situation. I am not a pacifist. The fight or flight quality is an innate feature of human nature.
-
So you really have no concern about right wing rhetoric at all? No crazed gun toting bubba is of any concern to you whatsoever. You are being quite disingenuous since you insist upon disarming the populace. Is that for other people's safety or those friends of yours who may feel defenseless and vulnerable?
We are probably going to have to live with crazies, criminals and politicians that wish to keep you in pasture, at least for the foreseeable future, and you believe that the honest, rational citizen be disarmed? Sounds like , if you are not feeling defenseless nor vulnerable, you are, in the least, a bit fearful. Is there some other reason for keeping rational people from being armed and without any means of protection.
On the one hand, you are perfectly fine with disarming everyone, except the government, of course, who will protect you from others. It is obvious you don't feel safe with people being armed but guess what, that doesn't get rid of crazies or criminals who will find their way to violence in some manner if not guns. But generally they are the only ones left with guns when the rest of the rational citizens have been disarmed.
Guess you never went to Boy Scouts. Their motto is "Be prepared". It's good advice.
Guess again cybertough.
-
...as would other individuals and families. In America, this includes the right to bear arms, and in many states, to carry them concealed. It ain't Canada!
Surely you aren't suggesting the availabilty of a gun would determine the outcome in any given situation. For example what if that individual whose home was invaded had the tables turned on him by being disarmed by an intruder or intruders.
By the way Brian Mulroney and Ronald Raygun were a cut of the same right wing cloth.
-
I am a New England Patriot fan. Having said that it would be quite interesting to see Seattle win the big one.
-
Nope...not in the least. I am more likely to be killed by somebody with a rapid fire Subaru.
No more than lobbyists for the education, trial lawyers, or Canadian softwood lumber industry.
Yes. Lyin' Brian Mulroney sold us down the river for a song.
-
You would feel differently if an armed intruder threatened your family, and you were at the intruder's mercy because you were unrmed.
What a person would do in such circumstances is really an unknown. No doubt if I felt my family was threatened I would do what I considered needed to be done to address such a situation.
-
Untrue.
The left likes people to be defenseless and vulnerable.
Not so although your gun may be your phallic symbol. As a lefty I feel neither defenseless nor vulnerable.
-
-
Oh.....you mean like the fact such takings are called expropriation, not eminent domain? Shall I invest the time to become an expert on "the law in Canada" even as other members stumble on the proceedings and law in America?
I doubt you will become an expert in Canadian law or for that matter American law. I challenge you to identify a state that doesn't have the capacity to seize property from it's citizenery regardless of the label attached to it.
-
-
That's OK....I always welcome the opportunity to disabuse anyone concerning false notions about guns and violence in America.
Guns and the language of guns are integral to American history and culture. Firearms are the quintessential example and instrument of American individualism and power.
It matters not that you agree or disagree...it just is...and has always been thus.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Well at least you appear to have a sense of humour. Has it ever occurred to you that the position you have staked out is a fallacious and misguided one? Does it not concern you that a lunatic can buy a rapid fire weapon with virtually no effective oversight? Are you not concerned that the NRA owns your political class including a number of individuals on the judiciary?
-
Of course....guns are very very American...nuts or not.
Ever heard of the Simbionese Liberation Army? They liked guns too.
Interesting to note that you liken yourself to fellow lunatics.
-
The reason the right to bear arms exists in the US is that it is "necessary to the security of a free State" (that's from the US constitution). Hand guns with limited magazines hardly would help to protect the security of a state in the modern day. Citizens must be allowed access to modern weaponry, including assault weapons, in order to have any chance at being effective in carrying out their purpose.
Gun nuts seem to infest the American right.
-
What do you expect from an empire that resorts to vileness to control the stupid people - video games - vile ........media - vile........art --------vile....sexuality now is totally vile and violated...you feed the monsters monster mash soup and suddenly you are surprised when the act out?quote]
So, are you saying that a similar event is to be expected to happen in Canada, because we Canadians are just as addicted to video games, American media, American art, sexuality, etc.?
Or is your post is just a display of typical Canadian, anti-American superiority?
Do you have any examples of a similar event happening here in Canada? If so produce it.
-
Oh.....you mean like the fact such takings are called expropriation, not eminent domain? Shall I invest the time to become an expert on "the law in Canada" even as other members stumble on the proceedings and law in America?
You should certainly be better informed about Canadian law before you make unsubstantiated claims about it.
Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Learn to spell, pal.