CDZ Fear and guns....a discussion.

[theliq]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.

I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.

You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.

However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?

Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.

As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.

We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.

Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.

I completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayin

Hi theliq
What is wrong with training security guards and other citizens
using the same process, including screening, required of police and military?

That's like training more people to do CPR or use a defibrillator,
instead of only the professional EMS, doctors and nurses.

Anyone can take lifeguard training, but there ARE certain steps you do and don't do.
The safety precautions HAVE to be followed, such as not letting a drowning person take you under.
Same with CPR and other first aid / first response procedures that have to be followed,
such as not moving a person with a possible head/spinal injury.

It doesn't make the training any less rigorous just because the person isn't a paid professional.
Why can the training, oath and screening required of officers and militaries
be offered to (or required of) ALL citizens who want this same responsibility for using arms for defense?

In answer to your last paragraph, Emily, that's what NRA is all about along with gun range instructors. Military people learn about guns and gun safety and it sticks with them for life.

If only it were true....the Discredited NRA,want everyone and anyone to have Guns in the USA,be you a gentle soul or Terrorist...it's simple they can all buy Guns........with NO Control because Americans cannot Control themselves, let alone others...Hoss it's just a shameful fact of American life......had your forefathers realised what a lot of Loboes some Americans would turn out to be generations later,they would Never have given you the 4th....they must be spinning in their Graves ...may they R.I.P..........................steve

 

[theliq]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

What a stupid example..............like saying I wear boots in the rain when it rains,because I'm prepared.........Stupid is a stupid speaks,methinks

 

[theliq]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.

I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.

You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.

However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?

Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.

As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.

We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.

Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.

I completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayin

Hi theliq
What is wrong with training security guards and other citizens
using the same process, including screening, required of police and military?

That's like training more people to do CPR or use a defibrillator,
instead of only the professional EMS, doctors and nurses.

Anyone can take lifeguard training, but there ARE certain steps you do and don't do.
The safety precautions HAVE to be followed, such as not letting a drowning person take you under.
Same with CPR and other first aid / first response procedures that have to be followed,
such as not moving a person with a possible head/spinal injury.

It doesn't make the training any less rigorous just because the person isn't a paid professional.
Why can the training, oath and screening required of officers and militaries
be offered to (or required of) ALL citizens who want this same responsibility for using arms for defense?

In answer to your last paragraph, Emily, that's what NRA is all about along with gun range instructors. Military people learn about guns and gun safety and it sticks with them for life.

Still think you have this thing about Hillary .....Hoss.....steve

 

[emilynghiem]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

Dear theliq
I would agree with you that the purpose and best use of arms
is for defense and deterrence, where ideally they don't have to be used at all.

I have met many police and peace officers who carry guns for dangerous situations that may require that,
but they don't depend on that, and do most of their deterrence and police work
by breaking up confrontations or preventing them completely CIVILLY.

You are right, for the most part the guns are not used but are there so they won't have to be!
That's the way it should be.

However, can you show a me a civilized society
that didn't still have criminally aggressive people who were effectively deterred by police carrying guns?

Because society and people aren't perfect, and there are still criminal people who
don't get help in advance, but are only discovered after they cause threats or problems to people,
then guns are still necessary in case of emergencies.

As we progress, and we can diagnose treat and cure the causes of criminal illness and behavior,
we can do more and more of the correctional work in advance and by civil means.

We won't have to rely so much on the point of confrontation with police,
or wait until after someone has stalked and killed people and is going to prison
BEFORE we get sick people help at the first sign of criminal abuse or dangerous addiction.

Until then, guns are still necessary, but in the right hands
of trained officers, they won't necessarily need to be used.

I completely agree with you Emily....Law Enforcement,The Military and some Proper Gun Clubs should have the ability to carry a Gun......but NO ONE else,steve but I can't see it happening in the US,so many folk think it's safer to carry a Gun.........Which is Totally Mental when you think about it,just sayin

Hi theliq
What is wrong with training security guards and other citizens
using the same process, including screening, required of police and military?

That's like training more people to do CPR or use a defibrillator,
instead of only the professional EMS, doctors and nurses.

Anyone can take lifeguard training, but there ARE certain steps you do and don't do.
The safety precautions HAVE to be followed, such as not letting a drowning person take you under.
Same with CPR and other first aid / first response procedures that have to be followed,
such as not moving a person with a possible head/spinal injury.

It doesn't make the training any less rigorous just because the person isn't a paid professional.
Why can the training, oath and screening required of officers and militaries
be offered to (or required of) ALL citizens who want this same responsibility for using arms for defense?

No .....A Gun is not the same as training someone to save lives in the sea or pool......the less people who have Guns the better.my opinion only of course..steve

Dear steve
Maybe it's because was brought up in a culture where the citizens with guns defending the law and Constitution
are the good guys who make for a safe environment.

I guess if you don't trust citizens with guns, that would be scary.

Also if you don't trust police with guns, that's even scarier; and I understand why the BLM advocates feel so helpless that they have to protest in collective numbers before they feel they even count or get heard at all.

To undo that environment of fear, I find that teaching and agreeing among everyone to enforce the same standards of government as police and military defend with their lives and sacred honor
helps to CREATE that sense of community that I guess I take for granted.

Had I been a poor Black or Latino male growing up around people I feared would bully, profile or target me for harassment and questioning everywhere I went,
I might have a different impression in my mind of guns and law enforcement based on the Constitution.

But I grew up in small enough Texas towns, that the people KNEW each other,
and you take care of your own community you take pride in.

So the people really causing fear are not the ones with guns, but people
with criminal issues who cannot control themselves and hurt other people either negligently or deliberately.

Once I found out even such criminal sickness can be diagnosed early to increase the chances of successful treatment and cure, then I don't fear crime, abuse or addiction as incureable but see it
as something we do need to focus on under a medical treatment model instead of just punishment
that makes people hide their problems or run from the law instead of seeking help for their sickness.

I think the element of "fear" is what biases judgment to the point of conflicting
with others who are "more afraid of other things."

Instead of fighting over these, why not address ALL fears and remove ALL those threats?
The common danger is when people have abusive, addictive or other mental/criminal issues.
So it makes sense to me, if we address that, then we resolve all the other issues stemming from these.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

What a stupid example..............like saying I wear boots in the rain when it rains,because I'm prepared.........Stupid is a stupid speaks,methinks

theliq What's wrong with that?
Yes, having your rain boots DOES show you are prepared to handle rain.
That's a good thing to be prepared, are you being sarcastic?
As if this is stating the obvious and that's what makes it so "stupid"?
Did I miss something?

 

[emilynghiem]

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

I think this is a valid analogy ChrisL

You can also use it for contrast and say:
But if you have a STOCKLOAD of fire extinguishers in your basement, plus extra fire gear and a truck and hoses, enough to equip a small town, that might show some extreme obsession or fear.

Good point ChrisL

I recently used a similar point in an argument with a friend about life insurance,
and how there's nothing wrong with wanting to be prepared.

 

[emilynghiem]

Still think you have this thing about Hillary .....Hoss.....steve

Hi theliq
RE: "this thing about Hillary"

There may be a lot of this "anti-Hillary bias" that is personal and/or sexist to some degree.
But my God, Hillary hasn't done much to help the horrible reputation she brought on largely herself.

I can see how Sarah Palin comes across wrong to people who don't get her either.
But Hillary, even more so. Sorry, but I don't see her as a helpless victim in this case.
Much of it is her own ambitions, where her profession benefits from this very image.
It goes both ways. So what she did to earn the reputation of being tough and ruthless
is naturally going to come back and bite her.

For the sexism part or from being a Democrat,
yes, the biases against Hillary are made WORSE for those two additional factors.
But even if she were male, she'd STILL would get jumped on because this is politics.
Look at Sarah Palin -- she also gets targeted with remarks about her gender.

I think the worst thing Hillary gets jumped on for is being the
VERY epitome of the power grabbing Democrat/Liberal
who puts power and party first, and the Constitution and interests of the ENTIRE public
(including rightwing conservatives) second in order to get favor of voting constituents to win office.

She fits the worst case stereotype of corrupt exploitative Liberal politicians
CLAIMING to represent the "victim class" when in practice is benefiting off politics by exploiting this vote.

So anyone who hates what Liberals stand for, is going to hate on Hillary Clinton
for claiming to be the champion of that crowd.

Of course people are going to have 'this thing' about Hillary.
if she pushes herself as representing a certain liberal ideology, then hating that comes with the territory.

How can you fault people for falling for this very bait?
Hillary deliberately USES that fear and hatred to lobby politically, she benefits from it!

Aren't both sides to blame for setting up and playing the game this way to be so divisive?
To draw publicity and votes by bullying, fear and hatred? How can you blame one
and not the other?

 

[theliq]

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

What a stupid example..............like saying I wear boots in the rain when it rains,because I'm prepared.........Stupid is a stupid speaks,methinks

theliq What's wrong with that?
Yes, having your rain boots DOES show you are prepared to handle rain.
That's a good thing to be prepared, are you being sarcastic?
As if this is stating the obvious and that's what makes it so "stupid"?
Did I miss something?

Emily....Well I was being somewhat Sarcastic in as much that comparing preparedness of rain boots or fire extinguishers to people carrying and potentially using a Gun(because they are frightened of a shadow or frightened of their own shadow) of this there is no comparison at all.steve

 

[Agit8r]

I don't think I could be bothered to wear something that bulky everywhere. I don't even like a full wallet. I'll take my chances with my fists.

 

[theliq]

Still think you have this thing about Hillary .....Hoss.....steve

Hi theliq
RE: "this thing about Hillary"

There may be a lot of this "anti-Hillary bias" that is personal and/or sexist to some degree.
But my God, Hillary hasn't done much to help the horrible reputation she brought on largely herself.

I can see how Sarah Palin comes across wrong to people who don't get her either.
But Hillary, even more so. Sorry, but I don't see her as a helpless victim in this case.
Much of it is her own ambitions, where her profession benefits from this very image.
It goes both ways. So what she did to earn the reputation of being tough and ruthless
is naturally going to come back and bite her.

For the sexism part or from being a Democrat,
yes, the biases against Hillary are made WORSE for those two additional factors.
But even if she were male, she'd STILL would get jumped on because this is politics.
Look at Sarah Palin -- she also gets targeted with remarks about her gender.

I think the worst thing Hillary gets jumped on for is being the
VERY epitome of the power grabbing Democrat/Liberal
who puts power and party first, and the Constitution and interests of the ENTIRE public
(including rightwing conservatives) second in order to get favor of voting constituents to win office.

She fits the worst case stereotype of corrupt exploitative Liberal politicians
CLAIMING to represent the "victim class" when in practice is benefiting off politics by exploiting this vote.

So anyone who hates what Liberals stand for, is going to hate on Hillary Clinton
for claiming to be the champion of that crowd.

Of course people are going to have 'this thing' about Hillary.
if she pushes herself as representing a certain liberal ideology, then hating that comes with the territory.

How can you fault people for falling for this very bait?
Hillary deliberately USES that fear and hatred to lobby politically, she benefits from it!

Aren't both sides to blame for setting up and playing the game this way to be so divisive?
To draw publicity and votes by bullying, fear and hatred? How can you blame one
and not the other?

I have an ongoing tease with Hoss about Hillary C because he often uses derogatory pics of her...I know he can't stand her ...BUT often those that do this sort of denial really like the person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I think it's sexual with my good friend Hoss,maybe not.....I therefore tease him about it.........Life is not all seriousness,I like to tease generally but with Hoss more so.....Yeah say it......I have a warped mind.......You could well be right but I can't change..LOL..steve ps I really enjoy your prose and posts Emily...I note you have been on USMB for 6 years,how come I have never come across you before??????Definately sic MY LOSS

 

[emilynghiem]

Still think you have this thing about Hillary .....Hoss.....steve

Hi theliq
RE: "this thing about Hillary"

There may be a lot of this "anti-Hillary bias" that is personal and/or sexist to some degree.
But my God, Hillary hasn't done much to help the horrible reputation she brought on largely herself.

I can see how Sarah Palin comes across wrong to people who don't get her either.
But Hillary, even more so. Sorry, but I don't see her as a helpless victim in this case.
Much of it is her own ambitions, where her profession benefits from this very image.
It goes both ways. So what she did to earn the reputation of being tough and ruthless
is naturally going to come back and bite her.

For the sexism part or from being a Democrat,
yes, the biases against Hillary are made WORSE for those two additional factors.
But even if she were male, she'd STILL would get jumped on because this is politics.
Look at Sarah Palin -- she also gets targeted with remarks about her gender.

I think the worst thing Hillary gets jumped on for is being the
VERY epitome of the power grabbing Democrat/Liberal
who puts power and party first, and the Constitution and interests of the ENTIRE public
(including rightwing conservatives) second in order to get favor of voting constituents to win office.

She fits the worst case stereotype of corrupt exploitative Liberal politicians
CLAIMING to represent the "victim class" when in practice is benefiting off politics by exploiting this vote.

So anyone who hates what Liberals stand for, is going to hate on Hillary Clinton
for claiming to be the champion of that crowd.

Of course people are going to have 'this thing' about Hillary.
if she pushes herself as representing a certain liberal ideology, then hating that comes with the territory.

How can you fault people for falling for this very bait?
Hillary deliberately USES that fear and hatred to lobby politically, she benefits from it!

Aren't both sides to blame for setting up and playing the game this way to be so divisive?
To draw publicity and votes by bullying, fear and hatred? How can you blame one
and not the other?

I have an ongoing tease with Hoss about Hillary C because he often uses derogatory pics of her...I know he can't stand her ...BUT often those that do this sort of denial really like the person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I think it's sexual with my good friend Hoss,maybe not.....I therefore tease him about it.........Life is not all seriousness,I like to tease generally but with Hoss more so.....Yeah say it......I have a warped mind.......You could well be right but I can't change..LOL..steve ps I really enjoy your prose and posts Emily...I note you have been on USMB for 6 years,how come I have never come across you before??????Definately sic MY LOSS

theliq I think you are wonderful too!
maybe I've been practicing on other people until I am good enough to talk with you ;-)
to be on your level, I had to work on it for six years

As for teasing people about Hillary C'mon
there's something called the 8th Amendment
against "cruel and unusual punishment"

What did these ppl do to deserve THAT?

Saying they have a closet thing for Hillary
is worse than teasing a guy about being gay!

OMG you are a nice thoughtful person
so why would you have that mean streak
are you trying to get yourself clobbered?
please don't, I would like you to stay fully intact and in one piece! ;-)

I really think you can carry deep insightful discussion
with no need to poke "too much" at people

teasing about Sarah Palin is one thing
(guys like teasing about how hot she is)
but Hillary, please have some respect
for humanity's sake, please! ;-)

[At least you aren't teasing that guy who
has a thing for Jodi Arias. I guess there
is something worse than Hillary Clinton....]

 

[emilynghiem]

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

What a stupid example..............like saying I wear boots in the rain when it rains,because I'm prepared.........Stupid is a stupid speaks,methinks

theliq What's wrong with that?
Yes, having your rain boots DOES show you are prepared to handle rain.
That's a good thing to be prepared, are you being sarcastic?
As if this is stating the obvious and that's what makes it so "stupid"?
Did I miss something?

Emily....Well I was being somewhat Sarcastic in as much that comparing preparedness of rain boots or fire extinguishers to people carrying and potentially using a Gun(because they are frightened of a shadow or frightened of their own shadow) of this there is no comparison at all.steve

OK I get what you mean thanks for clarifying theliq
To be fair

A. I'd say for the people who carry guns for "fear of their shadow":
if they have real paranoia, real mental illness that could get triggered,
they don't need to be using guns in place of therapy
So those ppl should be SCREENED OUT and not infringe on people who
are in control of their senses when they use arms to defend laws and rights
and don't have some trigger issue that could get people hurt by accident

B. So that is a different case where you are talking about mentally unstable
people who should be receiving therapy to stabilize

We aren't even talking about the same cases.
Are we running out of things to argue about?
That we have to mix two totally separate cases together
for an excuse to disagree and incite a discussion?

 

[emilynghiem]

If only it were true....the Discredited NRA,want everyone and anyone to have Guns in the USA,be you a gentle soul or Terrorist...it's simple they can all buy Guns........with NO Control because Americans cannot Control themselves, let alone others...Hoss it's just a shameful fact of American life......had your forefathers realised what a lot of Loboes some Americans would turn out to be generations later,they would Never have given you the 4th....they must be spinning in their Graves ...may they R.I.P..........................steve

Dear theliq
I wouldn't take it THAT far.

A. That's like assuming prochoice people who want NO regulations on abortions
(because once you open that door, then what else is going to get pushed and passed)
"don't care about abortion safety but want EVERYONE to have abortions instead of babies"

Not wanting "federal regulations" (out of precaution not to let govt push too far)
is different from "not caring for gun safety and responsibility" which can still be promoted locally by individuals
just like not wanting to "criminalize women for abortion"
is different from pushing abortion and not caring what is safe or not
by trusting doctors to be careful about this without adding more and more regulations from govt

B. as for what the Forefathers would think
I think they saw a lot of this coming with Blacks not given equal opportunity
or standing to be able to make it in a system where the slaves were brought in as property.
the political division between rich and power, those with ownership/experience with property
and those without, are still the main issue that has been there since day one;
and it fuels the fight over states sovereignty/people's rights vs. federal govt and using that
collective central authority with or without proper checks balance and separation of power.

I think they would have argued right alongside the people here.
Maybe instead of dueling to the death as Hamilton and Burr,
they would have shot each other out in the Flame Zone or gotten each other banned.

the same fights went on then as they do now.
just socially the contexts have changed but we
are still arguing about where does individual choice and freedom
end and greater collective social responsibility kick in.
how do we manage or reconcile those two levels.

That's always been the battle with both religion and politics.
This ain't nothing new, and I'm sure the Founding Fathers
would have argued similar as you, what's the point of having
freedom if you are going to go back to the same mess
we just came from, what is wrong with you?
there would be founders fighting on both sides of that, too,
saying the other person is an insult to the freedom we just fought for.

 

[theliq]

Still think you have this thing about Hillary .....Hoss.....steve

Hi theliq
RE: "this thing about Hillary"

There may be a lot of this "anti-Hillary bias" that is personal and/or sexist to some degree.
But my God, Hillary hasn't done much to help the horrible reputation she brought on largely herself.

I can see how Sarah Palin comes across wrong to people who don't get her either.
But Hillary, even more so. Sorry, but I don't see her as a helpless victim in this case.
Much of it is her own ambitions, where her profession benefits from this very image.
It goes both ways. So what she did to earn the reputation of being tough and ruthless
is naturally going to come back and bite her.

For the sexism part or from being a Democrat,
yes, the biases against Hillary are made WORSE for those two additional factors.
But even if she were male, she'd STILL would get jumped on because this is politics.
Look at Sarah Palin -- she also gets targeted with remarks about her gender.

I think the worst thing Hillary gets jumped on for is being the
VERY epitome of the power grabbing Democrat/Liberal
who puts power and party first, and the Constitution and interests of the ENTIRE public
(including rightwing conservatives) second in order to get favor of voting constituents to win office.

She fits the worst case stereotype of corrupt exploitative Liberal politicians
CLAIMING to represent the "victim class" when in practice is benefiting off politics by exploiting this vote.

So anyone who hates what Liberals stand for, is going to hate on Hillary Clinton
for claiming to be the champion of that crowd.

Of course people are going to have 'this thing' about Hillary.
if she pushes herself as representing a certain liberal ideology, then hating that comes with the territory.

How can you fault people for falling for this very bait?
Hillary deliberately USES that fear and hatred to lobby politically, she benefits from it!

Aren't both sides to blame for setting up and playing the game this way to be so divisive?
To draw publicity and votes by bullying, fear and hatred? How can you blame one
and not the other?

I have an ongoing tease with Hoss about Hillary C because he often uses derogatory pics of her...I know he can't stand her ...BUT often those that do this sort of denial really like the person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I think it's sexual with my good friend Hoss,maybe not.....I therefore tease him about it.........Life is not all seriousness,I like to tease generally but with Hoss more so.....Yeah say it......I have a warped mind.......You could well be right but I can't change..LOL..steve ps I really enjoy your prose and posts Emily...I note you have been on USMB for 6 years,how come I have never come across you before??????Definately sic MY LOSS

theliq I think you are wonderful too!
maybe I've been practicing on other people until I am good enough to talk with you ;-)
to be on your level, I had to work on it for six years

As for teasing people about Hillary C'mon
there's something called the 8th Amendment
against "cruel and unusual punishment"

What did these ppl do to deserve THAT?

Saying they have a closet thing for Hillary
is worse than teasing a guy about being gay!

OMG you are a nice thoughtful person
so why would you have that mean streak
are you trying to get yourself clobbered?
please don't, I would like you to stay fully intact and in one piece! ;-)

I really think you can carry deep insightful discussion
with no need to poke "too much" at people

teasing about Sarah Palin is one thing
(guys like teasing about how hot she is)
but Hillary, please have some respect
for humanity's sake, please! ;-)

[At least you aren't teasing that guy who
has a thing for Jodi Arias. I guess there
is something worse than Hillary Clinton....]

Emily,Now who's being Sarcastic,but I like you for it......LOL......yep I must admit I do like confrontation sometimes,but when folk get worked up and start abusing me,...well it's all "Shit off a Ducks back to me".

I find it very strange that Americans have such thin skins(you see what is happening here,I am raising the temperature up to get a reaction)

Let me say though and it's not about me,but you,a lot of Guys and Ladies think I can be a little difficult,and I agree,Aussies are by nature a little Bolshi,we do have a fairly low regard for Authority.

Now you can make you mind up on how Wonderful I am.......When that person.Sarah Palin was at her pathetic zenith.........this was a joke about her,here in Ausland aka Paradise................by the way we had very little regard for her in this country,actually we thought she was a little unhinged....anyway to the joke


What is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Ten Pin Bowling Ball ?......You can only get 3 fingers in a Ten Pin Bowling Ball !!!!!

As I said,we have a totally different sense of humour to you Americans..it is just the way we are

Now I think I'll Chill for a while

 

[emilynghiem]

Now you can make you mind up on how Wonderful I am.......When that person.Sarah Palin was at her pathetic zenith.........this was a joke about her,here in Ausland aka Paradise................by the way we had very little regard for her in this country,actually we thought she was a little unhinged....anyway to the joke

What is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Ten Pin Bowling Ball ?......You can only get 3 fingers in a Ten Pin Bowling Ball !!!!!

As I said,we have a totally different sense of humour to you Americans..it is just the way we are

I guess the Texas version of that joke is what
is the difference between Hillary Clinton and a Bowling Ball
= No thanks, I'd rather stick my penis in a bowling ball!

 

[theliq]

Now you can make you mind up on how Wonderful I am.......When that person.Sarah Palin was at her pathetic zenith.........this was a joke about her,here in Ausland aka Paradise................by the way we had very little regard for her in this country,actually we thought she was a little unhinged....anyway to the joke

What is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Ten Pin Bowling Ball ?......You can only get 3 fingers in a Ten Pin Bowling Ball !!!!!

As I said,we have a totally different sense of humour to you Americans..it is just the way we are

I guess the Texas version of that joke is what
is the difference between Hillary Clinton and a Bowling Ball
= No thanks, I'd rather stick my penis in a bowling ball!

Emily,I think both jokes have an immediacy.......Thanks but No Thanks is the Conscious thing..steve........

 

[ChrisL]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

What a stupid example..............like saying I wear boots in the rain when it rains,because I'm prepared.........Stupid is a stupid speaks,methinks

This is the clean debate zone.

 

[ChrisL]

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

What a stupid example..............like saying I wear boots in the rain when it rains,because I'm prepared.........Stupid is a stupid speaks,methinks

theliq What's wrong with that?
Yes, having your rain boots DOES show you are prepared to handle rain.
That's a good thing to be prepared, are you being sarcastic?
As if this is stating the obvious and that's what makes it so "stupid"?
Did I miss something?

Emily....Well I was being somewhat Sarcastic in as much that comparing preparedness of rain boots or fire extinguishers to people carrying and potentially using a Gun(because they are frightened of a shadow or frightened of their own shadow) of this there is no comparison at all.steve

Are you a United States citizen?

 

[ChrisL]

Still think you have this thing about Hillary .....Hoss.....steve

Hi theliq
RE: "this thing about Hillary"

There may be a lot of this "anti-Hillary bias" that is personal and/or sexist to some degree.
But my God, Hillary hasn't done much to help the horrible reputation she brought on largely herself.

I can see how Sarah Palin comes across wrong to people who don't get her either.
But Hillary, even more so. Sorry, but I don't see her as a helpless victim in this case.
Much of it is her own ambitions, where her profession benefits from this very image.
It goes both ways. So what she did to earn the reputation of being tough and ruthless
is naturally going to come back and bite her.

For the sexism part or from being a Democrat,
yes, the biases against Hillary are made WORSE for those two additional factors.
But even if she were male, she'd STILL would get jumped on because this is politics.
Look at Sarah Palin -- she also gets targeted with remarks about her gender.

I think the worst thing Hillary gets jumped on for is being the
VERY epitome of the power grabbing Democrat/Liberal
who puts power and party first, and the Constitution and interests of the ENTIRE public
(including rightwing conservatives) second in order to get favor of voting constituents to win office.

She fits the worst case stereotype of corrupt exploitative Liberal politicians
CLAIMING to represent the "victim class" when in practice is benefiting off politics by exploiting this vote.

So anyone who hates what Liberals stand for, is going to hate on Hillary Clinton
for claiming to be the champion of that crowd.

Of course people are going to have 'this thing' about Hillary.
if she pushes herself as representing a certain liberal ideology, then hating that comes with the territory.

How can you fault people for falling for this very bait?
Hillary deliberately USES that fear and hatred to lobby politically, she benefits from it!

Aren't both sides to blame for setting up and playing the game this way to be so divisive?
To draw publicity and votes by bullying, fear and hatred? How can you blame one
and not the other?

I have an ongoing tease with Hoss about Hillary C because he often uses derogatory pics of her...I know he can't stand her ...BUT often those that do this sort of denial really like the person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I think it's sexual with my good friend Hoss,maybe not.....I therefore tease him about it.........Life is not all seriousness,I like to tease generally but with Hoss more so.....Yeah say it......I have a warped mind.......You could well be right but I can't change..LOL..steve ps I really enjoy your prose and posts Emily...I note you have been on USMB for 6 years,how come I have never come across you before??????Definately sic MY LOSS

What in the hell??? This is the Clean Debate Zone. If you cannot keep your sanity intact, post someplace else please. This is a place for intelligent discussion. K? Bye bye now. Off to the Flamer zone with you!

 

[theliq]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

What a stupid example..............like saying I wear boots in the rain when it rains,because I'm prepared.........Stupid is a stupid speaks,methinks

This is the clean debate zone.

I know