Marshall
Member
Yes, you punish "them" for their actions, "not everyone"!
I might be against ccw's now...
- Thread starter twoblink
- Start date
- Status
Yes, you punish "them" for their actions, "not everyone"!
dairycreek
Member
I still think that many of twoblink's premises and arguments are faulty!!
But what an interesting, though sometimes disturbing, thread this has been. Congratulations for SOME of the arguments but moreso for the general civility. I have seen threads like this degenerate into anger and recrimination. This one has not. Great. Good shooting
But what an interesting, though sometimes disturbing, thread this has been. Congratulations for SOME of the arguments but moreso for the general civility. I have seen threads like this degenerate into anger and recrimination. This one has not. Great. Good shooting
MitchSchaft
member
That's true. If they don't care about their lives, they are generally the ones who are going to be causeing problems in the first place.
Plus, people may say they don't care about their lives, but when you put them in a situation they may prove you wrong.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Don't make me think twoblink.
Been mulling this one over since my first post.
Reading other's thoughts, trying to assimilate it all...or parts of it...
I am a Product of my environment, thats for sure.
When everyone is taught morals and values concurrent with the concept I define as American Liberty, with respect for self and others (at first blush, then ya gotta prove it); then I say, "OK, you might be reasonably sane and fit to interact with others up to and including bearing some form of arm or skill that can not only defend your life (and maybe mine) but one that could also be used in an offensive manner as well; in the hopes that your upbringing and societal mores are as good or better than mine.
(that sentence was almost as long as one of yours, trisha )
For the most part, I take this for granted, here in the part of North America called the USA and I erroneously assume that everyone everywhere shares this belief.
And probably, in large part... they do. Sometimes. In someplaces.
Not always and certainly not ALL people(s) (Currently the french come to mind).
Angry youngsters and even immature intellectuals who always know whats best for others need to be watched. If one is in the position to do so, and has a strong desire for spending time doing so, one MAY even initiate/educate/rehabilitate these poor lost souls. After raising two kids, I think I'd rather bang my head into a wall for a couplea hours...but be that as it may...
Success rate?
Questionable at best. Look at American Families and society or what passes for them/it today. Look at non-American cultures for the contrast.
It goes back to the "Who put you in charge today Mr. Omnipotent and why should I follow your rules?"
Some people plan, others are planned on. Some lead, some follow. Very Few march to their own drum (where HAVE I heard that?) without attracting unwanted attention.
Its an interesting hypothesis and fun to chew on, but in the end,
I like the fact that while being nice to everyone (on an individual basis) and while giving them a smile can be good, having a plan and/or the ability to stop (their) aberrant behaviour towards me and mine (how selfish of me) is probably in my best interest and highly practical.
As my dear old dad used to say when he was one of our Boy Scout Leaders, "Leave the world a better place for your having passed thru it... But Always... Be Prepared"
And yes twoblink, there are some people who just cannot play well with others. These are to be shunned and/or not trusted, sometimes regulated, neh?
Adios
Been mulling this one over since my first post.
Reading other's thoughts, trying to assimilate it all...or parts of it...
I am a Product of my environment, thats for sure.
When everyone is taught morals and values concurrent with the concept I define as American Liberty, with respect for self and others (at first blush, then ya gotta prove it); then I say, "OK, you might be reasonably sane and fit to interact with others up to and including bearing some form of arm or skill that can not only defend your life (and maybe mine) but one that could also be used in an offensive manner as well; in the hopes that your upbringing and societal mores are as good or better than mine.
(that sentence was almost as long as one of yours, trisha
)For the most part, I take this for granted, here in the part of North America called the USA and I erroneously assume that everyone everywhere shares this belief.
And probably, in large part... they do. Sometimes. In someplaces.
Not always and certainly not ALL people(s) (Currently the french come to mind).
Angry youngsters and even immature intellectuals who always know whats best for others need to be watched. If one is in the position to do so, and has a strong desire for spending time doing so, one MAY even initiate/educate/rehabilitate these poor lost souls. After raising two kids, I think I'd rather bang my head into a wall for a couplea hours...but be that as it may...
Success rate?
Questionable at best. Look at American Families and society or what passes for them/it today. Look at non-American cultures for the contrast.
It goes back to the "Who put you in charge today Mr. Omnipotent and why should I follow your rules?"
Some people plan, others are planned on. Some lead, some follow. Very Few march to their own drum (where HAVE I heard that?) without attracting unwanted attention.
Its an interesting hypothesis and fun to chew on, but in the end,
I like the fact that while being nice to everyone (on an individual basis) and while giving them a smile can be good, having a plan and/or the ability to stop (their) aberrant behaviour towards me and mine (how selfish of me) is probably in my best interest and highly practical.
As my dear old dad used to say when he was one of our Boy Scout Leaders, "Leave the world a better place for your having passed thru it... But Always... Be Prepared"
And yes twoblink, there are some people who just cannot play well with others. These are to be shunned and/or not trusted, sometimes regulated, neh?
Adios
Tamara
Senior Member
Baba Louie,
Quelle coincidence! Me, too!
I'll carry a gun to protect me and mine, you go and pass laws which me (and the bad guys, too) will ignore.
Quelle coincidence! Me, too!
I'll carry a gun to protect me and mine, you go and pass laws which me (and the bad guys, too) will ignore.
rennaissancemann
Member
twoblink
I think you're dead wrong on this one.
When you start attempting to quantify personal qualities such as responsibility, common sense, etc. you start down the same slippery slope that gave us the notion of an Aryan Super Man. When you diminish the rights of one individual, you diminish the rights of us all.
As it pertains to your comments on the value that an individual assigns to his own or another's life and its relevance to an armed society... an armed society tends to remove sociopathic individuals the old fashioned way, one individual at a time.
I think you're dead wrong on this one.
When you start attempting to quantify personal qualities such as responsibility, common sense, etc. you start down the same slippery slope that gave us the notion of an Aryan Super Man. When you diminish the rights of one individual, you diminish the rights of us all.
As it pertains to your comments on the value that an individual assigns to his own or another's life and its relevance to an armed society... an armed society tends to remove sociopathic individuals the old fashioned way, one individual at a time.
If human beings, indeed all living creatures, were one note songs that could easily be divided into two distinct categories and segregated (even voluntarily), we wouldn't have this problem. We could give the people who wanted no firearms to exist their hunk of living area, and we could have ours. But, as everyone here will doubtless agree, nobody is a one note song. Once within their own subgroup, people will begin to disagree on another issue. They will divide again. Then again, and again. There needs to be an ability to live and let live, for people to stop trying to force their feelings and beliefs on others in the form of laws and to let freedom reign. This fact is alluded to in a little document called the Constitution. The right of the People to practice their own religion, to speak their own mind, etc. were guaranteed to Americans, because our forefathers knew that there were far too many different viewpoints and beliefs to create a system of government that would work only in a completely homogenous society. The US government was designed as a system to work for everyone, and to guarantee that you would not be denied basic freedoms, including that of self defense, both from tyrannical government and from those who would rob, kill, maim, rape, etc you. These rights were not guaranteed on a ‘if you fit the description of what we think is good enough to enjoy these rights' basis, but for everyone.
It would be easy to throw up our hands and let so and so group get this chunk of America, and this group gets that chunk. But that isn't what the USA is about, in my opinion. Fight for everyone's right to protect themselves, until they've been PROVEN through violent crimes to be a danger to society. Don't give up states, counties, to anti-gunners who don't care about individual freedom and personal responsibility. Don't let them get away with their form of bigotry that lumps all gun owners under laws that have little effect on crime. Everything from the PRK to Virginia is the good ‘ol US of A, and the ‘experiment' of disarmament has already happened again and again throughout history with horrible results. Let them have their gun free area, and those that live there would learn that lesson in person. But the next generation would forget once that area was gone, and it would start again. Make it known that no area of the US is available for public disarmament, and no area is exempt from the 2nd Amendment. Stripping people of their rights, even where it may be a popular choice is not okay. Popularity nor even a majority makes something right, even to let people see what will happen once again.
Just as it is everyone's right to be armed, so it is to be unarmed. We are a country of liberty, not just of the right to keep and bear arms. Be careful not to force that ‘you need to be armed' opinion on others against their will, or you begin to destroy the fabric of our nation just as the anti-RKBA folks do.
It would be easy to throw up our hands and let so and so group get this chunk of America, and this group gets that chunk. But that isn't what the USA is about, in my opinion. Fight for everyone's right to protect themselves, until they've been PROVEN through violent crimes to be a danger to society. Don't give up states, counties, to anti-gunners who don't care about individual freedom and personal responsibility. Don't let them get away with their form of bigotry that lumps all gun owners under laws that have little effect on crime. Everything from the PRK to Virginia is the good ‘ol US of A, and the ‘experiment' of disarmament has already happened again and again throughout history with horrible results. Let them have their gun free area, and those that live there would learn that lesson in person. But the next generation would forget once that area was gone, and it would start again. Make it known that no area of the US is available for public disarmament, and no area is exempt from the 2nd Amendment. Stripping people of their rights, even where it may be a popular choice is not okay. Popularity nor even a majority makes something right, even to let people see what will happen once again.
Just as it is everyone's right to be armed, so it is to be unarmed. We are a country of liberty, not just of the right to keep and bear arms. Be careful not to force that ‘you need to be armed' opinion on others against their will, or you begin to destroy the fabric of our nation just as the anti-RKBA folks do.
twoblink
Member
My first comment is to give a thumbs up to THR. You people are great! Regardless if you agree with me, disagree, what I have seen in this thread is civility and a lot of hard thinking on everybody's part, including mine.
None of my opinions are set in stone, and so what I conclude this week might change if there is a nice flux of input from all you people who give great arguements.
Actually, that is true, except the difference between me and them, they think they are super man, I know I am!! Just kidding! The difference between me and them is that I apply things to _ME_ ONLY. They think one way and want to force it on everybody.
I would love for the world to be Christian, as that is my belief, but I won't force it on anybody..
Again, Vermont is not the tell-all tale. People care about their lives there....
None of my opinions are set in stone, and so what I conclude this week might change if there is a nice flux of input from all you people who give great arguements.
Actually, that is true, except the difference between me and them, they think they are super man, I know I am!!
Just kidding! The difference between me and them is that I apply things to _ME_ ONLY. They think one way and want to force it on everybody.I would love for the world to be Christian, as that is my belief, but I won't force it on anybody..
Again, Vermont is not the tell-all tale. People care about their lives there....
Oracle
Member
Twoblink,
I think that you're confusing "not caring about their lives" with simple recklessness. If someone truly didn't care whether they lived or died, they wouldn't take the actions that they do to preserve their lives, such as eating, drinking, finding shelter, etc. Take food away from these people that you say "don't care about their lives" and see whether it bothers them or not. If they truly didn't care, then they would care less whether or not they had enough to eat. However, I don't think that's the case, these people are probably simply reckless, meaning that they don't give much thought to what the consequences of their actions might be.
Now, that puts these people in a totally different category. People who do have some of care about their lives (self-preservation being a difficult instinct to remove), but don't give much thought or care to the consequences of the actions they take. I encounter these kind of people all the time, there may be a greater percentage of them in the population in some asian countries than there are here, but I haven't been to any asian countries so I can neither confirm nor deny that.
So, the question becomes "Does a significant portion of the population being reckless constitute a good reason to deny myself and others the right and ability to protect ourselves?" In my humble opinion, it does not.
I'm with Tamara, though, on this issue. Pass what laws you want to, I'm still going to take what steps I feel are necessary to protect me and mine, regardless of whether those behaviors are deemed "illegal" or not.
I think that you're confusing "not caring about their lives" with simple recklessness. If someone truly didn't care whether they lived or died, they wouldn't take the actions that they do to preserve their lives, such as eating, drinking, finding shelter, etc. Take food away from these people that you say "don't care about their lives" and see whether it bothers them or not. If they truly didn't care, then they would care less whether or not they had enough to eat. However, I don't think that's the case, these people are probably simply reckless, meaning that they don't give much thought to what the consequences of their actions might be.
Now, that puts these people in a totally different category. People who do have some of care about their lives (self-preservation being a difficult instinct to remove), but don't give much thought or care to the consequences of the actions they take. I encounter these kind of people all the time, there may be a greater percentage of them in the population in some asian countries than there are here, but I haven't been to any asian countries so I can neither confirm nor deny that.
So, the question becomes "Does a significant portion of the population being reckless constitute a good reason to deny myself and others the right and ability to protect ourselves?" In my humble opinion, it does not.
I'm with Tamara, though, on this issue. Pass what laws you want to, I'm still going to take what steps I feel are necessary to protect me and mine, regardless of whether those behaviors are deemed "illegal" or not.
DMK
Member
Twoblink, one of the things that bothers me about your argument is you keep referring to the actions and reactions of people in Asia, while at the same time trying to apply their actions to U.S. laws. Things are a whole lot different here in N. America. On average, folks in the U.S. have a whole different mindset than those from other countries. Even fresh immigrants change their tunes pretty darn quick once they get aclimated to life in these united states.
This kind of thing reminds me of metro folks who make laws that have no relevance in the country or (gasp!) world government. You just can't justify effective laws, rules and regulations for folks a great destance from you based on what you are seeing local.
This kind of thing reminds me of metro folks who make laws that have no relevance in the country or (gasp!) world government. You just can't justify effective laws, rules and regulations for folks a great destance from you based on what you are seeing local.
The magic word you used to base....
this post on is that you are discussing this subject with people in Taiwan. When you return to the world, you will not like it in Texas. I determine if I need a gun or not. My grandfather determined when I was ready for my first one and I ran with the ball from then on. In Texas mental health is a critera for a ccw. If you have a record of seeing a shrink you will not get a license. The state mandates you are educated in the knowledge of what is required to ccw and prove that you can handle and shoot a firearm safely and be retrained every 4 years.....chris3
this post on is that you are discussing this subject with people in Taiwan. When you return to the world, you will not like it in Texas. I determine if I need a gun or not. My grandfather determined when I was ready for my first one and I ran with the ball from then on. In Texas mental health is a critera for a ccw. If you have a record of seeing a shrink you will not get a license. The state mandates you are educated in the knowledge of what is required to ccw and prove that you can handle and shoot a firearm safely and be retrained every 4 years.....chris3
twoblink
Member
Have you seen Rowland Heights? Have you seen Monterey Park? Alhambra? If you think what I say about "Taiwanese" people aren't relavent to America, you are wrong.. These are the people who are now living in America, and bringing their mentality along with them..
Don't believe me? Think about the phrase "Asian female drivers". Yep...
My friend's mentality in LA, are just like that. They are from Taiwan or Hong Kong. They are now in the PRK, and aiming to make the PRK like Taiwan or HK...
Don't believe me? Think about the phrase "Asian female drivers". Yep...
My friend's mentality in LA, are just like that. They are from Taiwan or Hong Kong. They are now in the PRK, and aiming to make the PRK like Taiwan or HK...
Esky
Member
it's all in the mindset
Like DMK said:-
This made me think of the suicide bombers- how sad, and almost unbelievable to me, that some cultures can turn their own children into murderous death machines. And yet within those cultures, this abhorrent act is applauded & rewarded. I can't imagine most Americans having this point of view, but a lot of gun control has been enabled because of shootings at schools right in the USA- of kids, by kids. WHY???
I don't for a second think that this was caused by "availability of guns" but by the mindset of the kids doing the shooting. But how did they get this mindset? Where did it come from? I sure wish I knew. Nobody was doing that kind of thing when I was a kid, though I do remember hearing about one kid (high school age) who killed himself... can't remember why he did it, if I ever knew. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wanted to "blow up the school" when I was a schoolkid, but that was just a fantasy then, and I knew it; I also knew that the violence on TV (pretty mild & generally bloodless compared to now!) was just fantasy too. I liked playing cops & robbers, but I would never have wanted to kill all my friends & playmates.
Obviously I had (and still have) a different mindset to some of the kids today!
Thanks for a really good thread, lots to ponder here.
Esky
thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken
Like DMK said:-
This made me think of the suicide bombers- how sad, and almost unbelievable to me, that some cultures can turn their own children into murderous death machines. And yet within those cultures, this abhorrent act is applauded & rewarded. I can't imagine most Americans having this point of view, but a lot of gun control has been enabled because of shootings at schools right in the USA- of kids, by kids. WHY???
I don't for a second think that this was caused by "availability of guns" but by the mindset of the kids doing the shooting. But how did they get this mindset? Where did it come from? I sure wish I knew. Nobody was doing that kind of thing when I was a kid, though I do remember hearing about one kid (high school age) who killed himself... can't remember why he did it, if I ever knew. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wanted to "blow up the school" when I was a schoolkid, but that was just a fantasy then, and I knew it; I also knew that the violence on TV (pretty mild & generally bloodless compared to now!) was just fantasy too. I liked playing cops & robbers, but I would never have wanted to kill all my friends & playmates.
Obviously I had (and still have) a different mindset to some of the kids today!
Thanks for a really good thread, lots to ponder here.
Esky
thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken
- Status