How about those of us who aren’t concerned and don’t see a problem that needs acting on? Getting shot by a stranger just isn’t a big risk here.
Even if that isn’t preening self-delusion: It isn’t all about you, is it? Are you interested in keeping anyone *else *from getting killed?
I honestly thought this was leading up to a Trump-style call to ban Muslims.
Huh. A person calling for a ban on Muslims would say all of that, too…
…and all of that…
…and would build to that conclusion.
I mean, yeah, we’d have to swap in “First Amendment” in the middle of that bit about “Start demanding the repeal of the Second Amendment, behind which so many cowards have hidden” – but it’s the same reasoning, isn’t it?
It seems like the same reasoning throughout this thread; it doesn’t matter how many decent people [del]own guns[/del] are Muslim and aren’t hurting any law-abiding citizens; just demonize them all, if (a) all they do is speak out against this loathsome killer, but (b) they still work to preserve their Constitutional rights.
Would all the same insults be slung? The bit about masturbation and a pro-murder stance, about how the problem is these people and the disease they suffer from, about how those who aren’t interested in saving lives should just Shut The Fuck Up: all of it, word-for-word, the you-yourself-are-one-of-the-bad-guys bit, everything?
Even most Muslims don’t claim a right to exercise a fetish overrides others’ right to life.
So no.
No-It makes you an idiot.
If there’s significant enough risk to warrant government action. Getting shot by a stranger barely registers. Humans are bad at risk assessment. They get worked up about nonissues like stranger danger, mass shootings, and GMOs.
Yes, it’s terrible when one has to resort to insults and strawmen to make their point.
Huh. I’m trying to think of a way to describe the above…
Yep, that’ll do.
I’m impressed how you managed to write a sentence in which you commit every fallacy you’re in the process of accusing others of. Stay classy indeed.
You value selfishness over others’ deaths. “Give me liberty even if it gives you death!” seems to be your rallying cry.
No, we want to limit your rights so that vast numbers of people don’t die of preventable diseases, car crashes and/or gunshots. That’s how basic civilization works. This idea that people want more regulation for the sake of regulation is a fantasy.
Back on topic: I can’t really blame your average American for offering “thoughts and prayers” in the event of a tragedy. I can, however, look at politicians who do everything possible to 1) prevent not only any kind of gun control from happening but even research into mass shootings, and 2) spew endless rhetoric about how LGBT people are all degenerate child-molesting perverts who don’t deserve even basic human rights, and decide that, yes, those politicians should be buggered sideways with a glass-encrusted coracle. If everything you do works to facilitate these incidents, I don’t want your phony prayers when one happens.
For example, Mike Huckabee was quick off the mark to offer T&Ps; this is the same Mike Huckabee happily comporting himself with Kevin Swanson, a hateful preacher who thinks all gay people should die (but not until they’ve had a chance to pray all the gay out!). Messr Cruz and Jindal have also had the benefit of association with the good Reverend, but I’m sure they only turned up at his events for the potato salad.
But some Muslims, of course, say that gays should die. And some Muslims kill gays. Now, plenty of Muslims say they don’t want to override anyone’s right to life – but they of course want to maintain their First Amendment freedoms when it comes to what they believe and what they say, what with the rights to speech and religion.
And plenty of people who don’t happen to be Muslims say, yeah, okay, we’ll stick up for your First Amendment rights, seeing as how you’re not murdering anyone.
ElvisL1ves, could you please think about somebody else while you masturbate? TIA.
Regards,
Shodan
Jealousy does not become you.
I think it’s safe to say most Muslims across the world (though to be fair, probably not in the U.S.) would consider their (what I would call) fetishes about homosexuality and about women having sex outside of marriage to override gays’ and “harlots’” right to life.
I care about you. I’m just not ready to be exclusive.
Regards,
Shodan
“Now if y’all will excuse me, I need to find my whip. The cotton ain’t gonna pick itself!”
Still waitin’ on that list of what you’ve personally done over the past two decades to save lives from gun violence.
Excuse me??? I offered up the Aussie model and asked you respectful questions. “Gun grabber”. Sheesh.
OP, how do you know that these peace rallies never prevented any violence? If they got even one person to have a change of heart and decide not to attack in the future, then your whole premise is wrong.
Depending on government to try to contain evil by use of evil, that includes the criminal punishment, er justice system - built on a foundation of an eye for an eye and our bullies can stop yours, rule by fear simply does not help but makes things worse for all. Now if you can build a system based on rehabilitation for the good of the persons, including good thoughts for their well being by all those involved, instead of the punishment system, that would be a far better system,
So I’m not convinced the answer is in the solutions you cite, yes solutions you cite may have stopped this particular form of violence but I doubt it would do anything to contain the overall use of evil in the world, and the most we push back using evil (such as new laws and the use of fear, punishment and violence that backs them) the more evil in the world we have to contend with and fear.
So overall I do what I can, I try to be an agent for change, an agent for God to show and provide His/Her love to humanity, which also goes forth and changes hearts and is the only thing that can counter and dispose of evil and make this world a better place.
The coming together in goodwill to help heal the hurts of the evils is a good thing and does allow healing, answers. Rules and punishment ultimately do no good and give people a unfounded sense of self righteousness that leads to a worse off society of judgemental embittered people, which the OP seems to be a part of.
39 matches for “gun” on page one, 143 (so far) on page two; TL;DR, so I’m just going to say:
Here’s my suggestion- change the First Amendment to permit the government to do the following:[ul]
[li]Censor the media from sensationalizing public massacres[/li][li]Enact a new Hayes-style code to stop Hollywood’s glorification of gun violence[/li]Ban “slaughter training” first-person shooter games that desensitize youths to gore and death[/ul]What’s that? You say that would be an intolerable intrusion on peoples’ rights? Tough.
Access to guns, sure. But why does she need a personal weapon? Go to work, check out your weapon, guard Beyonce for 8-hours, go back to the office, turn the weapon back in.
And if weapons were harder to come by, then the need for private security to be armed would go way down.
Do you realize what you just said? That terrorists have won? That there’s no way to stop them? That we just might as well give up the fight?
I don’t know exactly what the solution is, but there is a solution. We’ve come too far as a society coming up with solutions to prevent senseless death for the millennia we’ve been here. You talk about how this isn’t Soviet Russia. Yeah–because we’ve done things to make it better.
Humanity will never stop trying to prevent these things. To do so would be to give up what makes us human.
To do so would be to say “what’s the point?” and end our lives ourselves.