Topaz Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 After reading one article on this guy from the Fox news, I say he started to change after being asked to leave school. He had a lot of time on his hands and he was doing POT and drinking and the two probably changed the chemicals in his brain that kept him sane. I still believe that the politics of the US over key issues didn't help in his thinking. Although now, you have Republican supporters and Democrats arguing over THAT fact and its getting nasty on that debate. One radio show I listened to said he was a Lib and from I heard on CNN, the fact he was an Independent. So in my view, the pot, drinking, getting kicked out school, being reject by the military and all the politics and that includs talk radio pushed this guy to do what he did. Apparently, he left an envelope that read the "assassination of me" so he wanted to die when he went to kill those people. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/10/loughners-meltdown-began-adulthood-near-say/?intcmp=prn_baynote-js_Loughners_Meltdown_Began_in_Adulthood_Those_Near_Him_Say#content Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Guess again cybertough. Namecalling really upsets me. I'm telling. That's it? You're arsenal is empty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 After reading one article on this guy from the Fox news, I say he started to change after being asked to leave school. He had a lot of time on his hands and he was doing POT and drinking and the two probably changed the chemicals in his brain that kept him sane. You watch Fox news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Namecalling really upsets me. I'm telling. That's it? You're arsenal is empty? A sensitive guy maybe needs some kleenex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 A sensitive guy maybe needs some kleenex. A sensitive guy! Yes, that's it. Gosh, no one has ever said that about me before. Pass the kleenex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 ame='Yukon Jack' date='10 January 2011 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1294680499' post='614666'] Do you have any examples of a similar event happening here in Canada? If so produce it. Yah - I produce you...look at your agressive action...it smacks of a typically conditioned confrontationalist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited January 12, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) 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. Most ludicrous thing I've ever read. In Canada you're not allowed to own assault weapons yet I'm just as free as any American. Furthermore, that's not what the constitution says. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Within the context of a Well Regulated Militia people shall have the right to bear arms. IE - THE FUCKING ARMY. Edited January 11, 2011 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) 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. Are you trying to tell me that if you have a disagreement with someone you don't know, they are armed and you are not, you will not feel intimidated and that person won't know it or try to take advantage of it. If you are, I don't believe you. The ability to kill at a distance without getting dirty is far different from having to get up close and personal about it. Far too easy. Edited January 11, 2011 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Most ludicrous thing I've ever read. In Canada you're not allowed to own assault weapons yet I'm just as free as any American. Furthermore, that's not what the constitution says. Within the context of a Well Regulated Militia people shall have the right to bear arms. IE - THE FUCKING ARMY. The SCOTUS has disagreed with you. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Most ludicrous thing I've ever read. In Canada you're not allowed to own assault weapons yet I'm just as free as any American. Furthermore, that's not what the constitution says. Within the context of a Well Regulated Militia people shall have the right to bear arms. IE - THE FUCKING ARMY. Militias are not part of the country's military. The Hutaree were not part of the US military. You may want to know what 'militia' actually means. Militias in the classical sense means that they are against the government and military of the country in which they live and operate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Militias in the classical sense means that they are against the government and military of the country in which they live and operate. That is nonsense. Militia does not mean that in any sense at all, let alone classical. A militia is a group of citizens who are organised as an armed military body for the welfare and security of the community (or state) What differentiates a militia from a standing army is the period of enlistment and its voluntary aspect. Edited January 11, 2011 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Definition of MILITIA1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service Webster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 That is nonsense. Militia does not mean that in any sense at all, let alone classical. A militia is a group of citizens who are organised as an armed military body for the welfare and security of the community (or state) What differentiates a militia from a standing army is the period of enlistment and its voluntary aspect. Well maybe in the classical sense, but they are typically NOT part of the regular military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 The SCOTUS has disagreed with you. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html Oh I know. I find it hilarious that someone like Scalia would say what he did in that article. 60 minutes ran a really interesting piece on his life story and his thoughts on constitutional law. He's a person who thinks the US constitution is a dead document and that it's interpretation can't be based upon what the founders thought or what it means today but only in what is physically written down. Yet, in the excerpt of his decision, he does exactly the opposite of what he preaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Well maybe in the classical sense, but they are typically NOT part of the regular military. False again. See Canada, australia, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand,Israel etc etc etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.