BREAKING NEWS--CA--Another Mass Shooting

[Ringel05]

The remedy, in my opinion, is going back to a stable and strong familial life, where the children feel valued and a part of something consistent They need to feel an inclusion. In addition to love, children need consistency and stability. They need responsibilities and goals, guidance and discipline ( boundaries ) not the things money can buy.

I don't see ^^^ happening, sadly.

Historically that is a myth. Familial dysfunction is nothing new.

 

[Pogo]

I know what you were driving at and you're wrong. You're relying on a Media created catchphrase that is ignorantly deluded at best, intentionally deceptive at worst.

Uh--- I don't take this from the "media". This is my own philosophy. I don't know what "catch phrase" you're talking about.

Would be nice to be acknowledged for my own freaking thoughts that at least they ARE my own thoughts. Dismissing them as emanating from somewhere else as a way of not addressing them smacks of the Alinsky fallacy.

And if you do "know what I'm driving at" then what's all this Constitution jazz? How is that even tangentially related?
This is why I suspect you don't get what I'm talking about. See the next post from AquaAthena. More at that.

"Almighty Gun" and "Gun Culture" are both media catch phrases that are constantly used to explain the issue in order to minimize and/or deny the constitutional aspect inherent in the argument. I'm surprised you didn't know that so yes it's all tangentially related.
I'm glad you acknowledged your philosophy is purely subjective but also quite surprised you referenced Alinsky in your response.
Granted I may not be getting your drift but based on the known catch phrases you used and how they are repeatedly utilized by the anti-2nd Amendment organizations and individuals.......

"Almighty Gun" I am proud to say I made up myself; I'm not aware of anyone stealing it but it seems somebody may owe me royalties...
It's a simple pun based on a well-known verbal icon.

So tell me, is it impossible for two minds not in communication with each other to come up with the same phrase, a pun based on an existing verbal icon? You're going with that, really? No, I resent that attempt to marginalize my argument.

"Gun culture" I have heard used, specifically by Bob Costas, and I found it spot on the mark. My own cognate phrase (again my invention) was "gun fetishism" and I use them interchangeably. But the fact that you can find somebody else coming up with the same phrase is not in any way a refutation of the meaning therein.

Bob Costas presents an interesting case; when he delivered a 90-second commentary on the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide he was roundly condemned for a "gun control rant". You can go to YouTube right now and find multiple postings calling it exactly that, and so spake myriad headlines about it. Yet Costas never once mentioned "gun control", or the Constitution, or the Second Amendment, or any laws whatsoever, existing or proposed, never mentioned any idea of banning or regulating anything. Yet here are all these descriptions claiming "gun control rant" -- an element that never existed.

Why is that exactly? Why the obsession with morphing an argument into something it never was?

Costas was talking about exactly the same thing -- culture. The influence that dare not speak its name and must be shouted down and morphed into something having to do with "Constitutions" and "gun control".

Bullshit.

I called bullshit at the time and I'm still calling it now. Costas was speaking of values and voluntary choices. So am I.

So the question remains -- why pretend an argument is about something it's not? What is so terrifying about addressing the argument on its own merits that it has to be continually run away from?

A year and a half I'm here and I have yet to get an answer to that.

 

[Ava]

The remedy, in my opinion, is going back to a stable and strong familial life, where the children feel valued and a part of something consistent They need to feel an inclusion. In addition to love, children need consistency and stability. They need responsibilities and goals, guidance and discipline ( boundaries ) not the things money can buy.

I don't see ^^^ happening, sadly.

Historically that is a myth. Familial dysfunction is nothing new.

Link to evidence of that statement, please?? ^^^

I was voicing an opinion without regards to political correctness. How many of our young male shooters in the past several years have been from broken homes?

In an article appearing in Public Discourse, Russell Nieli writes:

In a saner age, when people understood the palpable harms of “broken homes” and “fatherless boys” … the “family structure issue” would have guided reflection on the Lanza killings. But now, since any such discussion of divorce’s harms, especially the harm of not having a father present in the home, would step on too many toes, we focus instead on the safer territory of gun control and our mental health system.

PJ Media » With Mass Murderers, a Different Profile

 

[Ringel05]

Uh--- I don't take this from the "media". This is my own philosophy. I don't know what "catch phrase" you're talking about.

Would be nice to be acknowledged for my own freaking thoughts that at least they ARE my own thoughts. Dismissing them as emanating from somewhere else as a way of not addressing them smacks of the Alinsky fallacy.

And if you do "know what I'm driving at" then what's all this Constitution jazz? How is that even tangentially related?
This is why I suspect you don't get what I'm talking about. See the next post from AquaAthena. More at that.

"Almighty Gun" and "Gun Culture" are both media catch phrases that are constantly used to explain the issue in order to minimize and/or deny the constitutional aspect inherent in the argument. I'm surprised you didn't know that so yes it's all tangentially related.
I'm glad you acknowledged your philosophy is purely subjective but also quite surprised you referenced Alinsky in your response.
Granted I may not be getting your drift but based on the known catch phrases you used and how they are repeatedly utilized by the anti-2nd Amendment organizations and individuals.......

"Almighty Gun" I am proud to say I made up myself; I'm not aware of anyone stealing it but it seems somebody may owe me royalties...
It's a simple pun based on a well-known verbal icon.

So tell me, is it impossible for two minds not in communication with each other to come up with the same phrase, a pun based on an existing verbal icon? You're going with that, really? No, I resent that attempt to marginalize my argument.

"Gun culture" I have heard used, specifically by Bob Costas, and I found it spot on the mark. My own cognate phrase (again my invention) was "gun fetishism" and I use them interchangeably. But the fact that you can find somebody else coming up with the same phrase is not in any way a refutation of the meaning therein.

Bob Costas presents an interesting case; when he delivered a 90-second commentary on the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide he was roundly condemned for a "gun control rant". You can go to YouTube right now and find multiple postings calling it exactly that, and so spake myriad headlines about it. Yet Costas never once mentioned "gun control", or the Constitution, or the Second Amendment, or any laws whatsoever, existing or proposed, never mentioned any idea of banning or regulating anything. Yet here are all these descriptions claiming "gun control rant" -- an element that never existed.

Why is that exactly? Why the obsession with morphing an argument into something it never was?

Costas was talking about exactly the same thing -- culture. The influence that dare not speak its name and must be shouted down and morphed into something having to do with "Constitutions" and "gun control".

Bullshit.

I called bullshit at the time and I'm still calling it now. Costas was speaking of values and voluntary choices. So am I.

So the question remains -- why pretend an argument is about something it's not? What is so terrifying about addressing the argument on its own merits that it has to be continually run away from?

A year and a half I'm here and I have yet to get an answer to that.

I can care less what Costas said or the responses to what he said and I'll answer your bolded question.

The argument for you is what you want it to be, not always what the real argument is and this is true in this case. The so called "Gun Culture" is a misrepresentation of the issue and could well have been a subconscious attempt by Costas to address the issue from an aspect that ultimately is nothing more than a desire to move the argument to a realm that can be applied towards the ultimate goal of ridding the country of firearms.
The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control. So from my perspective I call bull shit.
Granted this is where we may be disconnecting, you not seeing my argument and me not seeing yours and given the individual and group psychological aspects inherent in this subject I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

 

[Ringel05]

The remedy, in my opinion, is going back to a stable and strong familial life, where the children feel valued and a part of something consistent They need to feel an inclusion. In addition to love, children need consistency and stability. They need responsibilities and goals, guidance and discipline ( boundaries ) not the things money can buy.

I don't see ^^^ happening, sadly.

Historically that is a myth. Familial dysfunction is nothing new.

Link to evidence of that statement, please?? ^^^

I was voicing an opinion without regards to political correctness. How many of our young male shooters in the past several years have been from broken homes?

In an article appearing in Public Discourse, Russell Nieli writes:

In a saner age, when people understood the palpable harms of “broken homes” and “fatherless boys” … the “family structure issue” would have guided reflection on the Lanza killings. But now, since any such discussion of divorce’s harms, especially the harm of not having a father present in the home, would step on too many toes, we focus instead on the safer territory of gun control and our mental health system.

PJ Media » With Mass Murderers, a Different Profile

You want me to go back to Cain and Abel then work forward to present day? History did not begin in the 1950s.

 

[Ava]

Historically that is a myth. Familial dysfunction is nothing new.

Link to evidence of that statement, please?? ^^^

I was voicing an opinion without regards to political correctness. How many of our young male shooters in the past several years have been from broken homes?

In an article appearing in Public Discourse, Russell Nieli writes:

In a saner age, when people understood the palpable harms of “broken homes” and “fatherless boys” … the “family structure issue” would have guided reflection on the Lanza killings. But now, since any such discussion of divorce’s harms, especially the harm of not having a father present in the home, would step on too many toes, we focus instead on the safer territory of gun control and our mental health system.

PJ Media » With Mass Murderers, a Different Profile

You want me to go back to Cain and Abel then work forward to present day? History did not begin in the 1950s.

No, I want you to be right. Isn't that the point of your post of which you cannot offer evidence?

 

[Ringel05]

Link to evidence of that statement, please?? ^^^

I was voicing an opinion without regards to political correctness. How many of our young male shooters in the past several years have been from broken homes?

In an article appearing in Public Discourse, Russell Nieli writes:

In a saner age, when people understood the palpable harms of “broken homes” and “fatherless boys” … the “family structure issue” would have guided reflection on the Lanza killings. But now, since any such discussion of divorce’s harms, especially the harm of not having a father present in the home, would step on too many toes, we focus instead on the safer territory of gun control and our mental health system.

PJ Media » With Mass Murderers, a Different Profile

You want me to go back to Cain and Abel then work forward to present day? History did not begin in the 1950s.

No, I want you to be right. Isn't that the point of your post of which you cannot offer evidence?

My question, based on the Ozie and Harriet family myth that you appear to be promoting, is you want me to link dysfunctionality throughout history??!! It's evident in the historical records going all the way back to Cain and Abel, that would be a massive tome!!
Here, I'll let you do the years of research required to answer your question:

family dysfunction through history

 

[Pogo]

"Almighty Gun" and "Gun Culture" are both media catch phrases that are constantly used to explain the issue in order to minimize and/or deny the constitutional aspect inherent in the argument. I'm surprised you didn't know that so yes it's all tangentially related.
I'm glad you acknowledged your philosophy is purely subjective but also quite surprised you referenced Alinsky in your response.
Granted I may not be getting your drift but based on the known catch phrases you used and how they are repeatedly utilized by the anti-2nd Amendment organizations and individuals.......

"Almighty Gun" I am proud to say I made up myself; I'm not aware of anyone stealing it but it seems somebody may owe me royalties...
It's a simple pun based on a well-known verbal icon.

So tell me, is it impossible for two minds not in communication with each other to come up with the same phrase, a pun based on an existing verbal icon? You're going with that, really? No, I resent that attempt to marginalize my argument.

"Gun culture" I have heard used, specifically by Bob Costas, and I found it spot on the mark. My own cognate phrase (again my invention) was "gun fetishism" and I use them interchangeably. But the fact that you can find somebody else coming up with the same phrase is not in any way a refutation of the meaning therein.

Bob Costas presents an interesting case; when he delivered a 90-second commentary on the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide he was roundly condemned for a "gun control rant". You can go to YouTube right now and find multiple postings calling it exactly that, and so spake myriad headlines about it. Yet Costas never once mentioned "gun control", or the Constitution, or the Second Amendment, or any laws whatsoever, existing or proposed, never mentioned any idea of banning or regulating anything. Yet here are all these descriptions claiming "gun control rant" -- an element that never existed.

Why is that exactly? Why the obsession with morphing an argument into something it never was?

Costas was talking about exactly the same thing -- culture. The influence that dare not speak its name and must be shouted down and morphed into something having to do with "Constitutions" and "gun control".

Bullshit.

I called bullshit at the time and I'm still calling it now. Costas was speaking of values and voluntary choices. So am I.

So the question remains -- why pretend an argument is about something it's not? What is so terrifying about addressing the argument on its own merits that it has to be continually run away from?

A year and a half I'm here and I have yet to get an answer to that.

I can care less what Costas said or the responses to what he said and I'll answer your bolded question.

The argument for you is what you want it to be, not always what the real argument is and this is true in this case. The so called "Gun Culture" is a misrepresentation of the issue and could well have been a subconscious attempt by Costas to address the issue from an aspect that ultimately is nothing more than a desire to move the argument to a realm that can be applied towards the ultimate goal of ridding the country of firearms.
The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control. So from my perspective I call bull shit.
Granted this is where we may be disconnecting, you not seeing my argument and me not seeing yours and given the individual and group psychological aspects inherent in this subject I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

Interesting that you first claim to be wholly uninterested in Bob Costas' argument and then immediately move on to -- Bob Costas' argument.

I'm afraid what you have here is, pretty clearly, a fallacy of "yeah, I know what you really mean". I shouldn't have to spell out why that's blatantly fallacious. In effect I already have.

I've said for my entire term here --including in this thread-- that I don't think throwing legislation at the issue solves anything. Yeah I'm sure background checks and the like have their place and all, but as I said from the beginning, that's trying to treat the symptom and ignoring the disease. As far as making laws, and restricting firearm access, and taking anyone's weapons away, and changing the Constitution -- I think that's a waste of time. All of them ignore the basic cultural drive.

You can't legislate cultural drive. We tried that with alcohol and cannabis. How'd that work out? On the other hand we didn't legislate tobacco smoking out of existence, and yet we have a whole different public attitude ("cultural drive") now than we did a hundred or even fifty years ago. One example. We used to think it "macho" to drive home drunk too, fifty years ago. Now it's a public shame. Another example. Domestic abuse -- a third. That is where change comes from: hearts and minds. Not laws.

So spare me the Constitutional song and dance. I'm a Liberal; I don't believe throwing laws at an issue makes it go away and I'm not interested in that approach. And I'll thank you to take my words at face value and not pretend they mean something I never brought up.

Still don't have an answer to the question of why this pretense of morphing someone's argument into something they never said is necessary. What is so damn scary about facing the argument on its face, dealing with the words on the page rather than plugging in one's own meanings? I really don't know.

So in summary:

The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control.

No, the real argument I'm making is EXACTLY culture. Stop putting words in my mouth pretending it's something else.

 

[Marianne]

How many times does this have to happen before we address the real Issue behind these shootings? It's not guns, it's Mental Health. We need to do a serious overhaul of the mental healthcare system. We also need to ask ourselves if the recent upswing in mass shootings is due to chemicals we are exposed to. We spray pesticides and throw man made fertilizer on the food supply,take medications for everything,get vaccines that we have no clue whats in them and eat ingriedients food we can't pronounce. All these things are in the air, water and soil. Maybe it's not as harless as the manufacturers are telling us.

 

[Ringel05]

"Almighty Gun" I am proud to say I made up myself; I'm not aware of anyone stealing it but it seems somebody may owe me royalties...
It's a simple pun based on a well-known verbal icon.

So tell me, is it impossible for two minds not in communication with each other to come up with the same phrase, a pun based on an existing verbal icon? You're going with that, really? No, I resent that attempt to marginalize my argument.

"Gun culture" I have heard used, specifically by Bob Costas, and I found it spot on the mark. My own cognate phrase (again my invention) was "gun fetishism" and I use them interchangeably. But the fact that you can find somebody else coming up with the same phrase is not in any way a refutation of the meaning therein.

Bob Costas presents an interesting case; when he delivered a 90-second commentary on the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide he was roundly condemned for a "gun control rant". You can go to YouTube right now and find multiple postings calling it exactly that, and so spake myriad headlines about it. Yet Costas never once mentioned "gun control", or the Constitution, or the Second Amendment, or any laws whatsoever, existing or proposed, never mentioned any idea of banning or regulating anything. Yet here are all these descriptions claiming "gun control rant" -- an element that never existed.

Why is that exactly? Why the obsession with morphing an argument into something it never was?

Costas was talking about exactly the same thing -- culture. The influence that dare not speak its name and must be shouted down and morphed into something having to do with "Constitutions" and "gun control".

Bullshit.

I called bullshit at the time and I'm still calling it now. Costas was speaking of values and voluntary choices. So am I.

So the question remains -- why pretend an argument is about something it's not? What is so terrifying about addressing the argument on its own merits that it has to be continually run away from?

A year and a half I'm here and I have yet to get an answer to that.

I can care less what Costas said or the responses to what he said and I'll answer your bolded question.

The argument for you is what you want it to be, not always what the real argument is and this is true in this case. The so called "Gun Culture" is a misrepresentation of the issue and could well have been a subconscious attempt by Costas to address the issue from an aspect that ultimately is nothing more than a desire to move the argument to a realm that can be applied towards the ultimate goal of ridding the country of firearms.
The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control. So from my perspective I call bull shit.
Granted this is where we may be disconnecting, you not seeing my argument and me not seeing yours and given the individual and group psychological aspects inherent in this subject I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

Interesting that you first claim to be wholly uninterested in Bob Costas' argument and then immediately move on to -- Bob Costas' argument.

I'm afraid what you have here is, pretty clearly, a fallacy of "yeah, I know what you really mean". I shouldn't have to spell out why that's blatantly fallacious. In effect I already have.

I've said for my entire term here --including in this thread-- that I don't think throwing legislation at the issue solves anything. Yeah I'm sure background checks and the like have their place and all, but as I said from the beginning, that's trying to treat the symptom and ignoring the disease. As far as making laws, and restricting firearm access, and taking anyone's weapons away, and changing the Constitution -- I think that's a waste of time. All of them ignore the basic cultural drive.

You can't legislate cultural drive. We tried that with alcohol and cannabis. How'd that work out? On the other hand we didn't legislate tobacco smoking out of existence, and yet we have a whole different public attitude ("cultural drive") now than we did a hundred or even fifty years ago. One example. We used to think it "macho" to drive home drunk too, fifty years ago. Now it's a public shame. Another example. Domestic abuse -- a third. That is where change comes from: hearts and minds. Not laws.

So spare me the Constitutional song and dance. I'm a Liberal; I don't believe throwing laws at an issue makes it go away and I'm not interested in that approach. And I'll thank you to take my words at face value and not pretend they mean something I never brought up.

Still don't have an answer to the question of why this pretense of morphing someone's argument into something they never said is necessary. What is so damn scary about facing the argument on its face, dealing with the words on the page rather than plugging in one's own meanings? I really don't know.

So in summary:

The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control.

No, the real argument I'm making is EXACTLY culture. Stop putting words in my mouth pretending it's something else.

Yes, it' looks like we have a misunderstanding going on here as well as you getting defensive and snippy with me, not what I expected from you. Unfortunate that.
Yes, I do now see what you are driving at, I misread (or you weren't completely clear concerning) your intent.
Just so I am clear as to my point that utilizing culture to change attitudes that will/could ultimately change legislation is the link in the argument/discussion I was referring to.
So I will at this moment revert to the emotive and tell you to stuff your indignation up your ass.

 

[Pogo]

I can care less what Costas said or the responses to what he said and I'll answer your bolded question.

The argument for you is what you want it to be, not always what the real argument is and this is true in this case. The so called "Gun Culture" is a misrepresentation of the issue and could well have been a subconscious attempt by Costas to address the issue from an aspect that ultimately is nothing more than a desire to move the argument to a realm that can be applied towards the ultimate goal of ridding the country of firearms.
The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control. So from my perspective I call bull shit.
Granted this is where we may be disconnecting, you not seeing my argument and me not seeing yours and given the individual and group psychological aspects inherent in this subject I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

Interesting that you first claim to be wholly uninterested in Bob Costas' argument and then immediately move on to -- Bob Costas' argument.

I'm afraid what you have here is, pretty clearly, a fallacy of "yeah, I know what you really mean". I shouldn't have to spell out why that's blatantly fallacious. In effect I already have.

I've said for my entire term here --including in this thread-- that I don't think throwing legislation at the issue solves anything. Yeah I'm sure background checks and the like have their place and all, but as I said from the beginning, that's trying to treat the symptom and ignoring the disease. As far as making laws, and restricting firearm access, and taking anyone's weapons away, and changing the Constitution -- I think that's a waste of time. All of them ignore the basic cultural drive.

You can't legislate cultural drive. We tried that with alcohol and cannabis. How'd that work out? On the other hand we didn't legislate tobacco smoking out of existence, and yet we have a whole different public attitude ("cultural drive") now than we did a hundred or even fifty years ago. One example. We used to think it "macho" to drive home drunk too, fifty years ago. Now it's a public shame. Another example. Domestic abuse -- a third. That is where change comes from: hearts and minds. Not laws.

So spare me the Constitutional song and dance. I'm a Liberal; I don't believe throwing laws at an issue makes it go away and I'm not interested in that approach. And I'll thank you to take my words at face value and not pretend they mean something I never brought up.

Still don't have an answer to the question of why this pretense of morphing someone's argument into something they never said is necessary. What is so damn scary about facing the argument on its face, dealing with the words on the page rather than plugging in one's own meanings? I really don't know.

So in summary:

The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control.

No, the real argument I'm making is EXACTLY culture. Stop putting words in my mouth pretending it's something else.

Yes, it' looks like we have a misunderstanding going on here as well as you getting defensive and snippy with me, not what I expected from you. Unfortunate that.
Yes, I do now see what you are driving at, I misread (or you weren't completely clear concerning) your intent.
Just so I am clear as to my point that utilizing culture to change attitudes that will/could ultimately change legislation is the link in the argument/discussion I was referring to.
So I will at this moment revert to the emotive and tell you to stuff your indignation up your ass.

Well that was a bit of a meltdown, wasn't it? I didn't build that. I've respectfully made my points. There's nothing "snippy" about having my words taken for what they mean and not what somebody else plugs in. That's called honesty.

No, I have no intention or illusion that cultural change brings about legislation. That never occurred to me. On the contrary it makes such legislation unnecessary. The way I see it, laws are a last resort when nothing else works, and a poor remedy. The power is in the hands of the people, not government.

Laws are about government; cultural change is about people. I go with the latter; that's why I'm here. If I was going with the former I'd be in government.

 

[Ringel05]

Interesting that you first claim to be wholly uninterested in Bob Costas' argument and then immediately move on to -- Bob Costas' argument.

I'm afraid what you have here is, pretty clearly, a fallacy of "yeah, I know what you really mean". I shouldn't have to spell out why that's blatantly fallacious. In effect I already have.

I've said for my entire term here --including in this thread-- that I don't think throwing legislation at the issue solves anything. Yeah I'm sure background checks and the like have their place and all, but as I said from the beginning, that's trying to treat the symptom and ignoring the disease. As far as making laws, and restricting firearm access, and taking anyone's weapons away, and changing the Constitution -- I think that's a waste of time. All of them ignore the basic cultural drive.

You can't legislate cultural drive. We tried that with alcohol and cannabis. How'd that work out? On the other hand we didn't legislate tobacco smoking out of existence, and yet we have a whole different public attitude ("cultural drive") now than we did a hundred or even fifty years ago. One example. We used to think it "macho" to drive home drunk too, fifty years ago. Now it's a public shame. Another example. Domestic abuse -- a third. That is where change comes from: hearts and minds. Not laws.

So spare me the Constitutional song and dance. I'm a Liberal; I don't believe throwing laws at an issue makes it go away and I'm not interested in that approach. And I'll thank you to take my words at face value and not pretend they mean something I never brought up.

Still don't have an answer to the question of why this pretense of morphing someone's argument into something they never said is necessary. What is so damn scary about facing the argument on its face, dealing with the words on the page rather than plugging in one's own meanings? I really don't know.

So in summary:


No, the real argument I'm making is EXACTLY culture. Stop putting words in my mouth pretending it's something else.

Yes, it' looks like we have a misunderstanding going on here as well as you getting defensive and snippy with me, not what I expected from you. Unfortunate that.
Yes, I do now see what you are driving at, I misread (or you weren't completely clear concerning) your intent.
Just so I am clear as to my point that utilizing culture to change attitudes that will/could ultimately change legislation is the link in the argument/discussion I was referring to.
So I will at this moment revert to the emotive and tell you to stuff your indignation up your ass.

Well that was a bit of a meltdown, wasn't it? I didn't build that. I've respectfully made my points. There's nothing "snippy" about having my words taken for what they mean and not what somebody else plugs in. That's called honesty.

No, I have no intention or illusion that cultural change brings about legislation. That never occurred to me. On the contrary it makes such legislation unnecessary. The way I see it, laws are a last resort when nothing else works, and a poor remedy. The power is in the hands of the people, not government.

Laws are about government; cultural change is about people. I go with the latter; that's why I'm here. If I was going with the former I'd be in government.

Accusing me of "putting words in your mouth" isn't getting snippy? Claiming my argument had no bearing because it wasn't your argument isn't getting snippy? Because we had a misunderstanding..........? I'm the one having a meltdown......? Okay, if you say so.........

Here ya go,

 

[freedombecki]

Seems to me these college kids feel they are entitled to something.

I think you should earn everything you get, but this kid thinks women should have sex with him regardless how he acts. He's a good looking kid, but looks aren't everything. Especially when you can't learn to be nice. Nobody wants to deal with an asshole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbv5Vpa-B-0

The problem here is these kids have mental problems. Remove the guns and the problem still remains; They still can't cope with life the way most of us do. If he hadn't shot people he would have eventually been tying them up and knifing them to death. That's how they did it 40 years ago. Back then, it was a bit scarier because it was so violent, not just a drive-by shooting. Mass Murder was big back in the 60s and 70s. Back then it was middle-aged men. Now it's college students. Seems most of the crazies are coming out of our universities. What are they being taught that causes them to hate so much?

Professors like Weathermen Bill Ayers, Kathy Boudin, and Bernadine Dohrn, left to their own asocial devices in formerly respected universities may have something to do with spreading the ideology of illogical hatred thicker than nut butter on imprintable young collegiate minds and those of their professors who were cranked out of the Weathermen mill.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

This whole situation was caused by interracial marriage. It caused this kid to have a identity crisis. He tried to be white and felt he was entitled to blonde white girls. His 140 page manifesto I read mentions blondes about a hundred times and how envy he is of whites. He was rejected by them too much so it meant they didn't accept him as white and it devastated him. This is what race mixing creates. Individuals without identity who can develop hostility against the majority who is not mixed.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, it' looks like we have a misunderstanding going on here as well as you getting defensive and snippy with me, not what I expected from you. Unfortunate that.
Yes, I do now see what you are driving at, I misread (or you weren't completely clear concerning) your intent.
Just so I am clear as to my point that utilizing culture to change attitudes that will/could ultimately change legislation is the link in the argument/discussion I was referring to.
So I will at this moment revert to the emotive and tell you to stuff your indignation up your ass.

Well that was a bit of a meltdown, wasn't it? I didn't build that. I've respectfully made my points. There's nothing "snippy" about having my words taken for what they mean and not what somebody else plugs in. That's called honesty.

No, I have no intention or illusion that cultural change brings about legislation. That never occurred to me. On the contrary it makes such legislation unnecessary. The way I see it, laws are a last resort when nothing else works, and a poor remedy. The power is in the hands of the people, not government.

Laws are about government; cultural change is about people. I go with the latter; that's why I'm here. If I was going with the former I'd be in government.

Accusing me of "putting words in your mouth" isn't getting snippy? Claiming my argument had no bearing because it wasn't your argument isn't getting snippy? Because we had a misunderstanding..........? I'm the one having a meltdown......? Okay, if you say so.........

Here ya go,

I give you your own words where you maintain that my position

ultimately is nothing more than a desire to move the argument to a realm that can be applied towards the ultimate goal of ridding the country of firearms.
The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control. So from my perspective I call bull shit.

Now if that isn't morphing my argument into something it never claimed to be, I don't know what is. Not only have you changed the argument, you've plugged in new motivations for my making it that I neither articulated nor even thought of. And this after trying to tell me where I got my phraseology from as well. See a pattern here?

I can't argue for a position I never took. If not accepting that kind of manipulation is "snippy" -- oh well.
I have always respected your voice here, but I will not accept being told what my own position is. You can take that to the bank.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Pay attention to what this guy says about Elliot and minorities feelings they are entitled to white women.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce1AcFdksig]Elliot Rodger - Eurasian killer hunted blonde girls - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Ringel05]

Well that was a bit of a meltdown, wasn't it? I didn't build that. I've respectfully made my points. There's nothing "snippy" about having my words taken for what they mean and not what somebody else plugs in. That's called honesty.

No, I have no intention or illusion that cultural change brings about legislation. That never occurred to me. On the contrary it makes such legislation unnecessary. The way I see it, laws are a last resort when nothing else works, and a poor remedy. The power is in the hands of the people, not government.

Laws are about government; cultural change is about people. I go with the latter; that's why I'm here. If I was going with the former I'd be in government.

Accusing me of "putting words in your mouth" isn't getting snippy? Claiming my argument had no bearing because it wasn't your argument isn't getting snippy? Because we had a misunderstanding..........? I'm the one having a meltdown......? Okay, if you say so.........

Here ya go,

I give you your own words where you maintain that my position

ultimately is nothing more than a desire to move the argument to a realm that can be applied towards the ultimate goal of ridding the country of firearms.
The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control. So from my perspective I call bull shit.

Now if that isn't morphing my argument into something it never claimed to be, I don't know what is. Not only have you changed the argument, you've plugged in new motivations for my making it that I neither articulated nor even thought of. I can't argue for a position I never took.

No, I pass on that. If not accepting that kind of manipulation is "snippy" -- oh well.
I have always respected your voice here, but I will not accept being told what my own position is. You can take that to the bank.

I already told you I misunderstood your point, due to my not seeing it or you not being clear enough and still you persist to harp on it claiming a simple misunderstanding was (intentional) "manipulation" of your argument on my part. By your own admission, "but I will not accept being told what my own position is." If that's not an emotive response then what is?
As you have said of me I also have respected your opinions but when anyone, including you becomes emotive with me I reserve the right to treat them as they are treating me.
I apologized for my part in the misunderstanding, I think it's your turn.

 

[Pogo]

Accusing me of "putting words in your mouth" isn't getting snippy? Claiming my argument had no bearing because it wasn't your argument isn't getting snippy? Because we had a misunderstanding..........? I'm the one having a meltdown......? Okay, if you say so.........

Here ya go,

I give you your own words where you maintain that my position

ultimately is nothing more than a desire to move the argument to a realm that can be applied towards the ultimate goal of ridding the country of firearms.
The real argument here isn't culture and has never been, it's the legal/constitutional/restrictive elements of gun control. So from my perspective I call bull shit.

Now if that isn't morphing my argument into something it never claimed to be, I don't know what is. Not only have you changed the argument, you've plugged in new motivations for my making it that I neither articulated nor even thought of. I can't argue for a position I never took.

No, I pass on that. If not accepting that kind of manipulation is "snippy" -- oh well.
I have always respected your voice here, but I will not accept being told what my own position is. You can take that to the bank.

I already told you I misunderstood your point, due to my not seeing it or you not being clear enough and still you persist to harp on it claiming a simple misunderstanding was (intentional) "manipulation" of your argument on my part. By your own admission, "but I will not accept being told what my own position is." If that's not an emotive response then what is?
As you have said of me I also have respected your opinions but when anyone, including you becomes emotive with me I reserve the right to treat them as they are treating me.
I apologized for my part in the misunderstanding, I think it's your turn.

You don't need to apologize; I'm not at all offended by emotive language. It's the spice rack here. I like spices

We're fine dude. My respect for your voice is unshaken, and I hope yours is as well. I regret that we looked down that road but I also see it as simple evolution of debate. I apologize if my argument was less than clear but after making the same argument for a year and a half on this website and being consistently not heard I really don't think the issue is mine alone. That gets back to my wonderment of why this argument must always be twisted into something it isn't.

Just to sweep up, here's one sentence I can't quite navigate, so I don't know where we are:

Just so I am clear as to my point that utilizing culture to change attitudes that will/could ultimately change legislation is the link in the argument/discussion I was referring to.

Not sure if this is a point of disclarity or not, because I don't know what it's saying. Can you rephrase? Thanks.

 

[Ringel05]

I give you your own words where you maintain that my position


Now if that isn't morphing my argument into something it never claimed to be, I don't know what is. Not only have you changed the argument, you've plugged in new motivations for my making it that I neither articulated nor even thought of. I can't argue for a position I never took.

No, I pass on that. If not accepting that kind of manipulation is "snippy" -- oh well.
I have always respected your voice here, but I will not accept being told what my own position is. You can take that to the bank.

I already told you I misunderstood your point, due to my not seeing it or you not being clear enough and still you persist to harp on it claiming a simple misunderstanding was (intentional) "manipulation" of your argument on my part. By your own admission, "but I will not accept being told what my own position is." If that's not an emotive response then what is?
As you have said of me I also have respected your opinions but when anyone, including you becomes emotive with me I reserve the right to treat them as they are treating me.
I apologized for my part in the misunderstanding, I think it's your turn.

You don't need to apologize; I'm not at all offended by emotive language. It's the spice rack here. I like spices

We're fine dude. My respect for your voice is unshaken, and I hope yours is as well. I regret that we looked down that road but I also see it as simple evolution of debate. I apologize if my argument was less than clear but after making the same argument for a year and a half on this website and being consistently not heard I really don't think the issue is mine alone. That gets back to my wonderment of why this argument must always be twisted into something it isn't.

Just to sweep up, here's one sentence I can't quite navigate, so I don't know where we are:

Just so I am clear as to my point that utilizing culture to change attitudes that will/could ultimately change legislation is the link in the argument/discussion I was referring to.

Not sure if this is a point of disclarity or not, because I don't know what it's saying. Can you rephrase? Thanks.

I'd rep ya but it won't let me.

Basically my point is the historical record of, change societal attitudes on an issue and eventually legislation can be (and sometimes is) enacted or removed to mirror societal attitudes, It's happening now with the Gay Marriage issue.
That's also a political tact some are applying towards the ultimate revocation of the 2nd Amendment. You used buzzwords/catch phrases that that cabal utilizes, it was natural to then associate your intent with their agenda. Again, part of where the misunderstanding originated from on my part.

 

[Pogo]

I already told you I misunderstood your point, due to my not seeing it or you not being clear enough and still you persist to harp on it claiming a simple misunderstanding was (intentional) "manipulation" of your argument on my part. By your own admission, "but I will not accept being told what my own position is." If that's not an emotive response then what is?
As you have said of me I also have respected your opinions but when anyone, including you becomes emotive with me I reserve the right to treat them as they are treating me.
I apologized for my part in the misunderstanding, I think it's your turn.

You don't need to apologize; I'm not at all offended by emotive language. It's the spice rack here. I like spices

We're fine dude. My respect for your voice is unshaken, and I hope yours is as well. I regret that we looked down that road but I also see it as simple evolution of debate. I apologize if my argument was less than clear but after making the same argument for a year and a half on this website and being consistently not heard I really don't think the issue is mine alone. That gets back to my wonderment of why this argument must always be twisted into something it isn't.

Just to sweep up, here's one sentence I can't quite navigate, so I don't know where we are:

Just so I am clear as to my point that utilizing culture to change attitudes that will/could ultimately change legislation is the link in the argument/discussion I was referring to.

Not sure if this is a point of disclarity or not, because I don't know what it's saying. Can you rephrase? Thanks.

I'd rep ya but it won't let me.

Basically my point is the historical record of, change societal attitudes on an issue and eventually legislation can be (and sometimes is) enacted or removed to mirror societal attitudes, It's happening now with the Gay Marriage issue.

OK I can navigate that, although the conclusion is hard to follow. Once a societal (cultural) shift has happened, the need for legislation along the same line would seem to have been rendered superfluous by the former, would it not? Therefore while I can see what your point A to point B is, I don't follow how you get there.

Not sure gay marriage is an applicable analogy here, because that isn't restricting anybody - whereas the firearm legislation that seems to be your concern, would be. Frankly I don't see much value in either one -- legislatively speaking. To my mind the more public mores (culture) guides people to do the right thing in lieu of legislation, the better off we are.

That's also a political tact some are applying towards the ultimate revocation of the 2nd Amendment. You used buzzwords/catch phrases that that cabal utilizes, it was natural to then associate your intent with their agenda. Again, part of where the misunderstanding originated from on my part.

Glad to have cleared that up but it's never been on my agenda. If I and they share common language perhaps it comes from a common observation of the emotive language continually employed by the gun proponents (which can be, let's face it, downright infantile and deserving to be satirized). It's the same state of mind that seems to blind them to the points I make and lump me into a "gun grabber" bag. Bob Costas got the same thing. (good example here on the same story) Maybe it can be seen as a slavish dichotomy of two polar views where nothing exists except at the poles. However when we get from the portrayal of the adversary down to the question of 'what to do about it', that's where I and they part ways.

There's just not, especially in a forum like this, enough (speaking generally now mind you) listening going on. A score of posters amble in with a preconceived bag of prelabled images that everything they see must fit into and proceed to bark out prefab rhetoric based on prefab stereotypes. That's why I notoriously loathe those blanket generalizations, and if I may say, one of the most intelligent voices of like mind in that disdain of that fallacy is yourself. Hence my respect.

I figured we were not so far apart in this morass after all. No issue here; bumps in the road make us stronger.