Shooting at Dark Knight in CO. What is WRONG with some people?

[Rickster71]

.......... My issue with that post was the Constitution and its phrasing of the line regarding the right to bear arms. And the fact that people like to believe they know for a fact what was on the minds of some sage white wealthy landowners from over 200 years ago. I pointed out a serious flaw in the logic of the Constitution.........

Mmm, it seems to me those sage white wealthy landowners did right by lots of people.

Amendment XIII (13): Abolition of slavery


Amendment XV (15): Black suffrage

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied

I'm sure there are plenty of people that also have issues with parts of that pesky old Constitution.

...just like your objections....there are guys in the KKK that think there are "Serious flaws in the logic of the Constitution" too.

 

[Nemo128]

Mmm, it seems to me those sage white wealthy landowners did right by lots of people.

Amendment XIII (13): Abolition of slavery


Amendment XV (15): Black suffrage

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied

I'm sure there are plenty of people that also have issues with parts of that pesky old Constitution.

...just like your objections....there are guys in the KKK that think there are "Serious flaws in the logic of the Constitution" too.

Thanks for the history lesson, I never knew that the Congress which ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 lived long enough to pass the 13th Amendment in 1865 and the 15th Amendment in 1870! Life expentency must have been incredible back then.

 

[Rickster71]

Well...lets hope the point wasn't lost....you know...in all the emotion.

 

[Nemo128]

Well...lets hope the point wasn't lost....you know...in all the emotion.

It seems like I'm the only one exercising real logic. Your emotional response was taking my "sage white landowners" comment as meaning all white men that existed... until when exactly? We're talking about who wrote the Constitution in its original form. You took the offramp to Exaggeration Town.

Amendments exist because the Constitution wasn't perfect in its written form, which prompted people later to change it. But people still insist on clinging to it without compromise. And I'm the one that's not logical?

 

[Rickster71]

It seems like I'm the only one exercising real logic. Your emotional response was taking my "sage white landowners" comment as meaning all white men that existed... until when exactly? We're talking about who wrote the Constitution in its original form. You took the offramp to Exaggeration Town.

Amendments exist because the Constitution wasn't perfect in its written form, which prompted people later to change it. But people still insist on clinging to it without compromise. And I'm the one that's not logical?

The Constitution is what it is, regardless of when, certain parts were written. At any of those points in time it was still your 'sage white landowners.' that wrote it

You have an emotional bias to guns, because friends or loved ones that were killed by criminals that happened to choose a gun.
Your emotional reaction to that situation (while perfectly understandable) can't be allowed to alter my law abiding right to protect my loved ones.

 

[Adam]

Your emotional reaction to that situation (while perfectly understandable) can't be allowed to alter my law abiding right to protect my loved ones.

Maybe I'm misreading things, but I don't think Nemo is advocating that at all.

 

[Nemo128]

The Constitution is what it is, regardless of when, certain parts were written. At any of those points in time it was still your 'sage white landowners.' that wrote it

You have an emotional bias to guns, because friends or loved ones that were killed by criminals that happened to choose a gun.
Your emotional reaction to that situation (while perfectly understandable) can't be allowed to alter my law abiding right to protect my loved ones.

Really Rickster? REALLY? Do you enjoy selective reading? I've only said about 4 times that I fully support gun ownership and I myself want to own guns. You just insist on focusing and seeing only what you want to in my posts. That's my cue to stop, since obviously this isn't a discussion in which the full context of what I'm saying is even being considered.

For the 5th time now, I FULLY SUPPORT GUN OWNERSHIP OF EVERY AND ANY CITIZEN THAT WANTS TO OWN THEM. I'm just pragmatic enough to recognize the fact that not everyone that wants to own one should, but I wouldn't take away their rights to do so.

Maybe I'm misreading things, but I don't think Nemo is advocating that at all.

THANK YOU! Finally I see someone is taking in the full context.

 

[Rickster71]

IMHO I don't see it that way
While you did mention one short line in each post "I support gun ownership"....but
You then consistently followed that with many, many paragraphs to the contrary.
I clearly posted replies with the few parts of your posts that I did have issues with...and noticed you haven't directly replied to those.

 

[AverageJoe]

...My issue with that post was the Constitution and its phrasing of the line regarding the right to bear arms. And the fact that people like to believe they know for a fact what was on the minds of some sage white wealthy landowners from over 200 years ago. I pointed out a serious flaw in the logic of the Constitution, which is that a well regulated militia already exists and you can get your gun fix there. What you're saying is that the military is an agent only of the govt and that somehow a bunch of couch surfers with a home collection of firearms are going to stand up against said military. Yeah, sure. You're also saying that our military members are mindless drones that will be complicent in the oppression of this country's citizens at the behest of the govt. Interesting... so you'd trust the average every day Joe with a gun, but not the people who put their tails on the line for your freedom (correct me if I'm wrong but in previous posts you've been very pro-military and pro-foreign intervention in the name of national security).
....

Well, it's really pretty easy to know for a fact what was on their minds by reading the articles and papers of the time. Besides the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, our founding fathers were fairly prolific writers.

..."And I'll repeat, we have a well-regulated militia and you can bear all the arms you want in it. Feel free to enlist, whether your flavor is HOOAH or OORAH. Because let's be for real, the people that say it's about being able to stop an oppresive govt are completely FoS and would never, NEVER, engage in any rebellion. EVER...".

You seem to think the National Guard (or military in general) is the militia that will protect us from any abuse of power by our government. The National Guard will be, and has been, the force assigned by our government to put down large uprisings of "the people". Other than their relief assistance in times of natural disaster, we typically see them in times of "civil unrest", called in to control unruly mobs and protesters. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that when they're protecting property and other citizens. But it's very easy to envision an order being given to "go assist the police in confiscating every firearm from all private citizens". I'm sure many people would think it was a reasonable order. How about, "We are going to confiscate all produce grown in California, and the Oranges from Florida, and send it to China. The growers aren't going to like it, so send the National Guard to make sure there is no trouble". People would be outraged at the second order. However, I've no doubt it would be obeyed as quickly as the first - after all, it's only produce and it's for a "worthy cause". Both actions are illegal abuse of power. It might be a little harder to give that second order, if they haven't already given the first. So, whether or not you believe that the people would use firearms in any open rebellion, the fact that they could, can have an effect on it's own. That deterrent is as completely relevant today as it was when written.

 

[Tomorrow]

And I'm the one that's not logical?

Unfortunately, I think yes. You think we are illogical...probably thinking such because of your stated personal losses due to firearms (illegally used). So your replies come with strong emotion and heart-felt opinion.

You drastically overestimate the common person in many ways. Rationality, intelligence, responsibility, and sanity are a few that come to mind.

From this previous post, it's clear that you don't give much trust or belief in the rest of us, or our opinions, or any logic and references we may provide. Open-mindedness is sometimes a virtue that should be strived for, but is difficult to come by...for all of us. You included. We may be a bit saner and brighter than you give us credit for.

 

[STRONGBADF1]

Let's shut this one down. It's a hot button topic that should be left to another forum. We seem to all want guns in some form or another so why the debate.

It's all just puss...

 

[Adam]

I think it's still a civil discussion. Whether you agree is, however, influenced by the tone that you attribute to another person's posts. For example, Nemo doesn't come across as being emotional to me, whereas others keep saying how emotional his posts are.

As long as we keep personal attacks out of it, I think it's still a good thread and an educational topic.

 

[Rickster71]

Sorry but this subject really pisses me off, since I lost a great friend to a shotgun and his fiance to a handgun that wound up in NJ from some "innocent civilian" down south who needed the cash and didn't do background checks on the lowlifes buying their hardware. And plenty of other people of all ages and denominations I've seen laying in caskets. We don't care about the right to life of our fellow citizens in so many ways, but we care about our individual right to have a gun. Inalienable rights my rear end...

I've quoted the post above as to where and when IMO it got emotional.

For quite a while this was a very civil thread with interesting conversation, that has pretty much run it's course.
Sometimes it's interesting to talk like adults, about something other than, "what can I get for $500." Though that's fun too.

 

[Tomorrow]

I think it's still a civil discussion. Whether you agree is, however, influenced by the tone that you attribute to another person's posts. For example, Nemo doesn't come across as being emotional to me, whereas others keep saying how emotional his posts are.

As long as we keep personal attacks out of it, I think it's still a good thread and an educational topic.

I agree, Adam, that this is an important topic for discussion and debate. And I don't think it should be shut down or stopped. I've seen disagreement but no serious personal attacks.

I don't agree with your other assessment, however. You really don't think the following is an emotional statement?

Sorry but this subject really pisses me off, since I lost a great friend to a shotgun and his fiance to a handgun that wound up in NJ from some "innocent civilian" down south who needed the cash and didn't do background checks on the lowlifes buying their hardware. And plenty of other people of all ages and denominations I've seen laying in caskets. We don't care about the right to life of our fellow citizens in so many ways, but we care about our individual right to have a gun. Inalienable rights my rear end...

 

[Adam]

I don't agree with your other assessment, however. You really don't think the following is an emotional statement?

There have been emotional statements, but I don't think that his posts are ruled by emotion.

I'm confident that I can and have had logical discussions about topics that I'm passionate about. IMO, the fact that emotional comments are made from time to time should not negate the value of level-headed comments.

 

[Tomorrow]

There have been emotional statements, but I don't think that his posts are ruled by emotion.

I'm confident that I can and have had logical discussions about topics that I'm passionate about. IMO, the fact that emotional comments are made from time to time should not negate the value of level-headed comments.

Where you see impassioned logic, I see emotional outburst.

Tomayto, tomahto.

 

[Adam]

On a similar but slightly different slant, I'm not a strong believer in inalienable (or natural) rights. I don't believe that I have a fundamental right to own a gun. Heck, I don't have a fundamental right to be alive. Put me on the plains of the Serengeti next to some hungry lions, and I'm going to guess that will become clear soon enough.

That said, I am a strong believer that all life is precious and deserves respect. Our biology requires us to take life in order to sustain our own, so there is no way for all life to continue without conflict. However, we can strive to make lives around us (human and non-human alike) as pleasant as possible while it exists.

Do I still think that we should end the life of the shooter? Yes, but not out of anger - out of the intention to protect lives from a clear and present danger. And, honestly, I see no reason to continue to end the lives of other creatures in order to ensure the continuation of his life.

Okay...there was some rambling going on there. I've been trying for half an hour to type this out, and I just can't quite get it right.

 

[Tomorrow]

As an aside to shooting things....

For those of you with clear skies, tonight is the high point of the Perseids meteor shower. Estimated meteors (shooting stars...get it? ) will be at roughly 70 per hour. Get on outside around midnight for the best showing.

 

[Adam]

Tomayto, tomahto.

You are my hero. That is the first time that I've ever seen that effectively written out! You da man.

 

[Adam]

As an aside to shooting things....

For those of you with clear skies, tonight is the high point of the Perseids meteor shower. Estimated meteors (shooting stars...get it? ) will be at roughly 70 per hour. Get on outside around midnight for the best showing.

I went out last night around 1:30am with Niki to take her outside, and I was seeing flashes off near the horizon. I thought it was lightning for a couple of minutes before I saw a meteor streak. I only saw the one, but I watched for another five minutes or so. I kept seeing the ground around me light up, but I never saw another streak.