Offline
This has to be the quote of the year! Thanks Jeerleader
"You hold yourself up to be a shining example of high intellectual function but you can only define other's positions (after you misrepresent them) as insane and driven by emotional constructs ("hate") . . . How is that being respectful (or "smart")? You say you want discussion here to be based in respect but how can I respect you and others, when you and others employ ONLY intellectually dishonest argumentation?"
“If your intent is to drive away oppositional views then you are doing a great job. I can't see how participating in discussion only with those who agree with you gives you any feeling of satisfaction and self-worth, knowing that you can't stand the heat of real debate.”
Offline
Thanks for addessing the question I posed in post #73, Jeer. We probably would draw a line in a different place on the, "What is reasonable or unreasonable types of weaponry suitable to be sold and distributed among the citizenry of the USA," but at least you answered the question.
The only thing I question is when the "law-abiding citizen" comes up in a discussion. I hear that alot.
Thing is, there's plenty of 'law-abiding citizens' that run amok. Nothing we can do about that, but when they do, I rather not have them have access to weaponry I feel is too dangerous and lethal to be disseminated throughout the population. That brings us back to my initial paragraph.
For example, my neighbor down the street is what we might call a bit of a nutjob or whacko. He's always yelling at his kids or fussing with his wife or another neighbor. To my knowledge, however, he's a 'law-abiding citizen'. But, that's exactly the 'law-abiding citizen' I wouldn't want to be stock-piling a pile of weapons and ammo in his basement. If he was packing a flintlock rifle over his fireplace or in his bedroom closet, most of us in the neighborhood would breathe easier. (I know the flintlock thing is an extreme example, but you get the picture)
Last edited by Just Fred (5/28/2015 10:06 am)
Offline
Common Sense wrote:
This has to be the quote of the year! Thanks Jeerleader
"You hold yourself up to be a shining example of high intellectual function but you can only define other's positions (after you misrepresent them) as insane and driven by emotional constructs ("hate") . . . How is that being respectful (or "smart")? You say you want discussion here to be based in respect but how can I respect you and others, when you and others employ ONLY intellectually dishonest argumentation?"
“If your intent is to drive away oppositional views then you are doing a great job. I can't see how participating in discussion only with those who agree with you gives you any feeling of satisfaction and self-worth, knowing that you can't stand the heat of real debate.”
Get back on topic.
Offline
Just Fred wrote:
Thanks for addessing the question I posed in post #73, Jeer. We probably would draw a line in a different place on the, "What is reasonable or unreasonable types of weaponry suitable to be sold and distributed among the citizenry of the USA," but at least you answered the question.
The only thing I question is when the "law-abiding citizen" comes up in a discussion. I hear that alot.
Thing is, there's plenty of 'law-abiding citizens' that run amok. Nothing we can do about that, but when they do, I rather not have them have access to weaponry I feel is too dangerous and lethal to be disseminated throughout the population. That brings us back to my initial paragraph.
For example, my neighbor down the street is what we might call a bit of a nutjob or whacko. He's always yelling at his kids or fussing with his wife or another neighbor. To my knowledge, however, he's a 'law-abiding citizen'. But, that's exactly the 'law-abiding citizen' I wouldn't want to be stock-piling a pile of weapons and ammo in his basement. If he was packing a flintlock rifle over his fireplace or in his bedroom closet, most of us in the neighborhood would breathe easier. (I know the flintlock thing is an extreme example, but you get the picture)
Offline
Wasn't Adam lanza a law abiding citizen right up to the moment he blew his mother's brains out?
Offline
From today, and this sorta illustrates what I mean about 'law-abiding citizens' with rather powerful weaponry:
Police in suburban San Diego were in a standoff with a gunman Thursday after he killed a neighbor and retreated to his apartment, where his wife and two children were inside, authorities said.
Police began evacuating the 39-unit apartment complex in Chula Vista about four hours after the morning shooting, which Capt. Lon Turner said arose from a dispute among neighbors."We don't want there to be any further bloodshed," Turner said.
Callers initially reported seeing a man with an AK-47 retreat into the apartment, but shell casings at the scene indicated another type of gun, Turner said. Callers reported hearing four to 10 shots.
The victim's family members were among the people evacuated from the sprawling complex of low-slung, lime-green apartments.Humberto Carranza's wife, 8-year-old son and 2-year-old daughter were among the evacuees. Carranza, who was at work as a door installer when he heard about the standoff, spoke with his wife on the phone throughout the ordeal as SWAT officers stood in their backyard with sniper rifles. His family was in his son's bedroom, which was farthest away from the gunman's apartment.
Carranza, 33, said he knows the man involved in the standoff, and their sons are classmates who play together."I don't know what went wrong," he said. "He seemed to be all right. I just saw him yesterday and he said hi."
Last edited by Just Fred (5/28/2015 4:08 pm)