GUNS - Page 18
+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81415161718192021 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 204
Like Tree88Likes

Thread: GUNS

  1. #171
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,392

    Default

    I've avoided this thread all along because this is one issue that really gets me in the gut. Alas, the page shifted on me as I was clicking, and here I am...

    Whenever I hear the "I need guns to protect me from the government," thing, my first thought is, you only need one pistol and one bullet, and that's to off yourself when the trouble starts. Because there's simply no way that you are ever going to be able to outmatch the U.S. military.

    And to the Second Amendment argument not prohibiting any particular kind of gun, the Constitution wasn't written to prohibit anything; it was written to give rights and freedoms to the people of this new country, and it also established certain regulations and checks & balances to help keep order. One of the beautiful things about our Constitution is that it isn't specific, it's very broadly written, and that's precisely because they were writing it knowing that they didn't know what the world be like 200+ years later. The Founding Fathers didn't envision the need for an Army, hence their desire to legally (and with regulation) arm a volunteer militia, which is what we now call the National Guard. They also could never have fathomed a gun that could kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds or bullets that could pierce armor, or I'd bet that they *would* have regulated those things in the Second Amendment or elsewhere. The average citizen doesn't need that kind of gun or bullet, only a member of the military does, and that's my literal reading of the Second Amendment.
    Last edited by Spacers; 05-21-2013 at 02:44 PM.
    indigoV51, blather and SID081108 like this.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  2. #172
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    This has been bugging me all morning. I don't think that I've ever really encountered anyone who has flat out stated that they aren't a pacifist. I mean, on some level, don't we all want peace? Don't we all believe, on an intellectual level that peace between nations (or individuals CAN be achieved without resorting to war? Does stating that one is NOT a pacifist mean that you would call your self pro war or pro violent solution? I'm really curious about what you mean by this, could you explain it more?

    pac?i?fism (ps-fzm)n.1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
    2.a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
    b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.


    I guess that I've never even considered that anyone would be "anti" definition #1. Or #2A. #2 B, well, I would not personally go to war, but I guess I do understand how other people would go to war, but if 2 out of 3 definitions of pacifist fit would one really be "not a pacifist"? I'm very interested to hear more, if you don't mind.
    #1 in that definition is where you would lose me. I think that disputes should be handled peacefully, but I dont think they can in some cases.
    I dont identify as a pacifist or non-pacifist. But if given the choice to allow someone to harm my kids or take them out I think I would take them out (I say think because I am not sure if I could pull the trigger if it were real)
    Rivergallery likes this.
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  3. #173
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mom3girls View Post
    #1 in that definition is where you would lose me. I think that disputes should be handled peacefully, but I dont think they can in some cases.
    I dont identify as a pacifist or non-pacifist. But if given the choice to allow someone to harm my kids or take them out I think I would take them out (I say think because I am not sure if I could pull the trigger if it were real)

    Mmmm. Nowhere in that definition do I see "when someone is trying to hurt your children say "right on man" and hand them over with a zen like smile". I don't think that pacifists don't believe in self defense. Or in handing over children to rapists and stuff.
    Spacers and Jessica80 like this.

  4. #174
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,389

    Default

    I am sure the interpretation of the definition is going to vary from one person to the next. When I think of a pacifist, I think of someone who is against violence in all situations including self defence. I am sure in actuality, it is a spectrum with many believes ranging from this to violence only when necessary.

    ~Bonita~

  5. #175
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I am sure the interpretation of the definition is going to vary from one person to the next. When I think of a pacifist, I think of someone who is against violence in all situations including self defence. I am sure in actuality, it is a spectrum with many believes ranging from this to violence only when necessary.
    That's not a pacifist, that's just a dumb ***. I think the only people who truly advocate absolute non-violence in a self-defense situation are civil disobedients and then it's more of a political statement than a philosophical belief.
    Pacifism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  6. #176
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    That's not a pacifist, that's just a dumb ***. I think the only people who truly advocate absolute non-violence in a self-defense situation are civil disobedients and then it's more of a political statement than a philosophical belief.
    Pacifism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quoted from the Wikipedia article - "...and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others."
    Rivergallery and mom3girls like this.

    ~Bonita~

  7. #177
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default Confused christianity mentioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    Quoted from the Wikipedia article - "...and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others."
    Well, the same Wiki article also states this

    Later religious teachers like Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), and Jesus have also taught this.
    So (I think it was RG, right, who was telling Jessica that she isn't a Christian, or is doing Christianity wrong??) maybe the Wiki article is flawed, because if Jesus was a pacifist, and RG is NOT a pacifist, clearly something is wrong with this Wiki article.

    I do not think that 99% of self identified pacifists would hand their children over to child rapists in the name of pacifism. I would argue that pretty vehemently.
    Spacers and Jessica80 like this.

  8. #178
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Melissa, havent you argued pretty regularly that people should not be allowed to carry handguns for protection?
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  9. #179
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    You mean like to church and stuff? I'm not sure I understand your question and I'm not a gun specialist, and I'm not sure how it relates to the current topic? I'm confused, could you clarify what you mean? I'm super anti people carrying around guns in public which shoot lots of bullets in seconds, yes. And yes, I think that way way too many people are granted C&C licenses, I would see them severely limited, yes. So I'm not sure if you are questioning me about a type of gun or about C&C'ing licenses or about pacifists. Sorry If my answer isn't clear I am confused by your question. I have never ever argued that a person ought NOT TO be able to have a handgun (I've been specific about what type and how many bullets they should be able to shoot)for protection in their home.

  10. #180
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    I agree. The truth is that I'd like to see all handguns banned. Other places do it. I just know it won't be happening any time soon (especially with 47% of polled Republicans saying that they forsee an armed rebellion in the coming few years (WTF do I even start with that?)
    This is where I got the idea that you wanted all handguns banned
    AlyssaEimers likes this.
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions