Guns, pros and cons!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
I think you've been very patient Ron and if I was a moderator I would have jumped in a long time ago. There is absolutely no need for name calling whoever the asshole is. 
I do however, find the political debates interesting as it is one way to learn what ordinary people think and not just a blog by some 'journalist' with a paid for opinion and a hidden agenda, so I hope it doesn't result in the demise of this wonderful forum (Paddock).
Because, when all is said and done, we are just a bunch of Grumpy Old Men...somewhat disturbed by the whippersnappers from the Far, Middle and Near East, and Wyoming.
Bring it on :laugh:
(PS, You call THAT a knife?)
I do however, find the political debates interesting as it is one way to learn what ordinary people think and not just a blog by some 'journalist' with a paid for opinion and a hidden agenda, so I hope it doesn't result in the demise of this wonderful forum (Paddock).
Because, when all is said and done, we are just a bunch of Grumpy Old Men...somewhat disturbed by the whippersnappers from the Far, Middle and Near East, and Wyoming.
Bring it on :laugh:
(PS, You call THAT a knife?)
Ron,
I should have listened to my wife; she was telling me what you have said weeks ago, I feel very foolish, and I am very sorry for my part in this.
Well, maybe I should leave this thread because I can't stand having people read me the wrong way. I'm sure most of that is my fault for not writing it out better.
I never said anything even hinting about morality being objectionable. My point was that many of us, who through some eyes can be "more moral" than some religious people by the way, don't need religion to be moral. What many religious people fail to understand (and the dangerous part is that many politicians fall in this category) is that many of us see religion as a man made belief system. In other words, all these morals that I supposedly can't be trusted in having (since I am not religious), were conceived of and written by man, not a god. It is inherent in us. That is why we have a Constitution, not the bible, to guide our civil population.
I never spoke about the wanton killing of fetuses. I mentioned abortion. It doesn't have to be a third trimester mutilation. Sometimes the mother will die and can take the fetus with her. Use your brain.
"I can only assume that all you agnostics and athiests out there are not raping your children and eating your neighbors for dinner just because the ten commandments tell you not to." :huh:
And frankly, some of the most intollerant people I have ever met were liberals.
That goes both ways, believe me.
Think for a moment, libs are more than happy to march down the street in support of gay marriage, but shudder at the thought that some religious group in Utah/Arizona/Texas or wherever wants to practice poligamy.
Again - :huh: There are far more liberals out there than conservatives that would have no problem with poligamy. I understand what you are saying, but nothing is absolute. Of course not every liberal will be for poligamy. Liberals are also not for the wanton killing of fetuses, as much you may believe.
Intolerance covers many facets.
Just a simple comment on religion. If you look at Judaism and Christianity in general, and I am sure the Muslims would agree as well, that their book was divinely inspired in men where the non-religious agenda is from the minds of humans. How do we know what are the truths and the morality of it?
You can agree or disagree with that, not a problem.
You can agree or disagree with that, not a problem.
Chris,
Since I've now formally sworn off all visits to the paddock, this will be my last post;
No, you didn’t say anything about morality being objectionable, just morality based on a person’s religion. You seem uncomfortable with morality that you perceive based on a belief in a man-made Deity, but are perfectly comfortable with a morality that is man-made without pretense. I see little difference, either way (from your perspective) they both are ultimately fabricated by the whims of man. In fact, my point was that that same morality, that you find objectionable and attributable to religion…is not. You in fact argued my position. I find rape, abortion, and murder in general objectionable not out of any religious belief. Yet you attribute a whole host of moral standings to be based on religious interpretation. Personally, I would be much more wary of an individual whose morals are something "inherent", and that are much more likely to be "relative" ie flexible.
As a physician (MD) who is significantly more familiar with the conditions that lead to abortion than most, including you,I find your assumption that the mother's health has anything to do with it is laughable. You've bought the lie. I can promise you that in the literally hundreds of abortions that I've been personally involved with, not a single one was performed because there was any threat to the mother's life. Statistically, they are nearly all performed for convenience, with rare exceptions for fetuses with severe and terminal genetic defects. And late-term abortions have absolutely no place in a civilized society. By the time a baby gets to the third trimester, it is essentially fully developed, with a completely functioning nervous system. You may as well take a toddler and throw her into a wood chipper....there is no difference in the physical sensation to the child. Anyone who argues otherwise is either uninformed or a liar, there are no other options. And, just in case you were wondering, they do not anesthetize the fetus.
Of course you are right about there being no absolutes.
As for conservatives and liberals, and the relative proportion that would be willing to put up with polygamy or any number of other individual freedoms, my experience is that I would be much better off with the conservatives.
In general, I’m much more for personal responsibility, and less for making excuses for failure. I do not come from a moneyed background, and can fairly say that I’ve at least seen both sides of the economic street. I think liberals have done a great disservice to the "underclasses" , regardless of any supposed good intentions. And I say supposed, because ultimately, my impression of just about any political leadership is that they are out to preserve their own power. The trick is in making their best interest the same as that of the rest of the country. Leaders need their feet held to the fire. If they don’t perform, kick them to the curb. In capitalism, the same goes for any other individual or business. Perform or perish. (And lets not get in to debate about what to do with those who physically or mentally can’t).
That’s it for me.
Since I've now formally sworn off all visits to the paddock, this will be my last post;
No, you didn’t say anything about morality being objectionable, just morality based on a person’s religion. You seem uncomfortable with morality that you perceive based on a belief in a man-made Deity, but are perfectly comfortable with a morality that is man-made without pretense. I see little difference, either way (from your perspective) they both are ultimately fabricated by the whims of man. In fact, my point was that that same morality, that you find objectionable and attributable to religion…is not. You in fact argued my position. I find rape, abortion, and murder in general objectionable not out of any religious belief. Yet you attribute a whole host of moral standings to be based on religious interpretation. Personally, I would be much more wary of an individual whose morals are something "inherent", and that are much more likely to be "relative" ie flexible.
As a physician (MD) who is significantly more familiar with the conditions that lead to abortion than most, including you
,I find your assumption that the mother's health has anything to do with it is laughable. You've bought the lie. I can promise you that in the literally hundreds of abortions that I've been personally involved with, not a single one was performed because there was any threat to the mother's life. Statistically, they are nearly all performed for convenience, with rare exceptions for fetuses with severe and terminal genetic defects. And late-term abortions have absolutely no place in a civilized society. By the time a baby gets to the third trimester, it is essentially fully developed, with a completely functioning nervous system. You may as well take a toddler and throw her into a wood chipper....there is no difference in the physical sensation to the child. Anyone who argues otherwise is either uninformed or a liar, there are no other options. And, just in case you were wondering, they do not anesthetize the fetus.Of course you are right about there being no absolutes.
As for conservatives and liberals, and the relative proportion that would be willing to put up with polygamy or any number of other individual freedoms, my experience is that I would be much better off with the conservatives.
In general, I’m much more for personal responsibility, and less for making excuses for failure. I do not come from a moneyed background, and can fairly say that I’ve at least seen both sides of the economic street. I think liberals have done a great disservice to the "underclasses" , regardless of any supposed good intentions. And I say supposed, because ultimately, my impression of just about any political leadership is that they are out to preserve their own power. The trick is in making their best interest the same as that of the rest of the country. Leaders need their feet held to the fire. If they don’t perform, kick them to the curb. In capitalism, the same goes for any other individual or business. Perform or perish. (And lets not get in to debate about what to do with those who physically or mentally can’t).
That’s it for me.
Ron, the interesting things is on many of those topics you and I share the same views, however you seem to have some preconceived notions about liberals (which I guess I could be labeled one, but certainly not ultra-liberal), and seem to be assuming I take on a lot of those viewpoints that you don't agree with.
Are you saying that a mother's health can never be in danger from any kind of condition of the fetus? That's all I'm talking about - those 1 in a million cases. I'm not naive enough to think that's always the case - come one man - stop painting that picture. And please don't go on about the fetus' well being and physical pain in such a way that implies I care nothing about it. That's the lamest way to take part in a discussion. I am fully aware, as are many people, that a fetus can feel pain; I'm not stupid.
In general, I’m much more for personal responsibility, and less for making excuses for failure. I do not come from a moneyed background
Ditto. As is probably the same for most people on this forum.
I think liberals have done a great disservice to the "underclasses" , regardless of any supposed good intentions.
Probably, and same goes for the conservatives.
No, you didn’t say anything about morality being objectionable ... ... In fact, my point was that that same morality, that you find objectionable...
:huh:
I give up. This is why I inevitably kick myself for ever taking part in discussions of this topic. You're not looking at things objectively, let alone paying attention to what others are saying.
You seem uncomfortable with morality that you perceive based on a belief in a man-made Deity
NO - where do you get that from? Again - this is why I hate these topics. I don't have a problem with morality gained from, say, Christianity. What I have a problem with is other people's notion that I have no morals because I don't practice their religion.
This is ridiculous, I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old.
Are you saying that a mother's health can never be in danger from any kind of condition of the fetus? That's all I'm talking about - those 1 in a million cases. I'm not naive enough to think that's always the case - come one man - stop painting that picture. And please don't go on about the fetus' well being and physical pain in such a way that implies I care nothing about it. That's the lamest way to take part in a discussion. I am fully aware, as are many people, that a fetus can feel pain; I'm not stupid.
In general, I’m much more for personal responsibility, and less for making excuses for failure. I do not come from a moneyed background
Ditto. As is probably the same for most people on this forum.
I think liberals have done a great disservice to the "underclasses" , regardless of any supposed good intentions.
Probably, and same goes for the conservatives.
No, you didn’t say anything about morality being objectionable ... ... In fact, my point was that that same morality, that you find objectionable...
:huh:
I give up. This is why I inevitably kick myself for ever taking part in discussions of this topic. You're not looking at things objectively, let alone paying attention to what others are saying.
You seem uncomfortable with morality that you perceive based on a belief in a man-made Deity
NO - where do you get that from? Again - this is why I hate these topics. I don't have a problem with morality gained from, say, Christianity. What I have a problem with is other people's notion that I have no morals because I don't practice their religion.
This is ridiculous, I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old.
I got here late, but I'm with Ron. Own many, but not all I desire to own, but have access to anything that goes bang 50 cal and under now. Use to love to shoot my 6 barrel 20mm when shot at...not in anger but self defense. I use to make my living for 39 years doing this like many of you. I don't hunt now, and that isn't because of the kill, but the friends who I use to 'hunt' with are still 22 or 30 forever.
Remember them and your brothers tomorrow....November 11th.
Be safe out there.
Grady
Remember them and your brothers tomorrow....November 11th.
Be safe out there.
Grady
"Are you saying that a mother's health can never be in danger from any kind of condition of the fetus? That's all I'm talking about - those 1 in a million cases. I'm not naive enough to think that's always the case - come one man - stop painting that picture. And please don't go on about the fetus' well being and physical pain in such a way that implies I care nothing about it. That's the lamest way to take part in a discussion. I am fully aware, as are many people, that a fetus can feel pain; I'm not stupid."
Then don't bring up abortion (which you did) as an issue you disagree with conservatives/the religious on. Because if abortions were only performed when the mother's life were actually in danger, relatively few people would be against it. And very few would be done. But you bring it up in a context where, in America today, virtually any woman can have one performed in the first two trimesters simply because she feels like it at the moment. No other reason required. Your "one in a million" has nothing to do with reality. Why don't you wake up and smell the freakin' coffee. Abortion rights is sacrosanct in the Democrat party, and no "liberal" candidate would dare to suggest to limiting it to cases where the mother's life is actually at risk. I don't know how much you know or care about abortions and the physiology involved. The fact remains that needless lives are taken as a matter of convienence. Does that matter to you, or does it's life not count until the toes are delivered? Don't try to have it both ways...you can't claim to care about the unborn, and at the same time support an institution that results in millions of needless deaths, because their might be "one in a million" where the mother's life is at risk.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that you may "have no morals because I don't practice their religion."
I didn't say that. I didn't say anything like that. I was trying to point out that many people develop a moral compass entirely exclusive of any religious influence. And guess what, their conclusions may not mirror your own. In fact, there are "godless" conservatives who disagree with you in just the same fashion as the religious ones.
This is ridiculous, I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old.
Do you routinely lose those arguments, too?:laugh:
Then don't bring up abortion (which you did) as an issue you disagree with conservatives/the religious on. Because if abortions were only performed when the mother's life were actually in danger, relatively few people would be against it. And very few would be done. But you bring it up in a context where, in America today, virtually any woman can have one performed in the first two trimesters simply because she feels like it at the moment. No other reason required. Your "one in a million" has nothing to do with reality. Why don't you wake up and smell the freakin' coffee. Abortion rights is sacrosanct in the Democrat party, and no "liberal" candidate would dare to suggest to limiting it to cases where the mother's life is actually at risk. I don't know how much you know or care about abortions and the physiology involved. The fact remains that needless lives are taken as a matter of convienence. Does that matter to you, or does it's life not count until the toes are delivered? Don't try to have it both ways...you can't claim to care about the unborn, and at the same time support an institution that results in millions of needless deaths, because their might be "one in a million" where the mother's life is at risk.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that you may "have no morals because I don't practice their religion."
I didn't say that. I didn't say anything like that. I was trying to point out that many people develop a moral compass entirely exclusive of any religious influence. And guess what, their conclusions may not mirror your own. In fact, there are "godless" conservatives who disagree with you in just the same fashion as the religious ones.
This is ridiculous, I feel like I'm talking to a 3 year old.
Do you routinely lose those arguments, too?:laugh:
John,
Just shows how we are all different, I don't consider what I put as being petty, but I do consider giving someone an English lesson in a debate on the pros and cons of guns petty, just my opinion nothing else
At least I can console myself with the fact that you don't have to be good at English to be an American Vice president so there is hope for me yet.
I think I have finally got it, I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong. Taking everything you have posted into account, it points to the fact that in your professional opinion you would rather be faced in the street with a mugger carrying a gun than a screwdriver.
I'd take the screwdriver over a gun anytime but each to their own.
This is where situational awareness comes into play. Bad people can do bad things at any time in any place. It's up to those good, decent people to be eternally vigilant to avoid being a victim. (If people were even halfway coherent during their daily life they would avoid 99% of all accidents and workplace injuries, not to mention the odd fellow being protective of a backpack while praying in Arabic on the subway platform...)
I always scan a crowd looking for trouble, no matter if it's in the ticket line for the movie theatre, at the grocery store, at a swap meet, at the county fair, or in a bar.
Preparation for as many eventualities as possible is what has enabled mankind to progress to the the point that he thinks he's separate from nature. But that preparation started because we are a part of nature.
You're right Ron, I wasn't very polite in several of my posts. It was never my intent for it to devolve into a pissing match. I just tire of having personal attacks leveled at me by people who say they are above that sort of thing, then get up in arms when it's layed back at their feet.
I try to contribute good tech, judicious compliments and fair criticisms in other parts of the forum.
I won't be participating nearly as much in The Paddock as I have in the past, simply because it's not fair to you and other forum members who are here for camaraderie, not controversy.
Yes, that's funny.
Rich Americans - opposing the Bush/Rice/Obama war strategy - buy gold and (military grade) guns (because "it's a good investment to buy guns that can kill people as they soon will be short in supply") and move to Switzerland as the US is transforming into "the Peoples Republic of the United States".
Meanwhile, liberal US women living in urban areas eagerly support the US drone attacks on terrorist targets abroad and also the financial attacks of G Soros and alikes on the US economy.
Sounds like something :shocked:. Not the US I know. But on the other hand, what do I know. I'm not american.
Like I said previously, I don't know much about guns or what it feels like to be a 'sheriff' having to constantly scan crowds lines and groups for potential outbreaks of trouble (sounds a hideously stressful way to live a life) but I do worry about the logic of letting certain people own them, like this guy for instance.
(Note that in the slomo replay he is already turning his head away when he shoots so I assume it's like a stupid compeition - anyway, it's dumbass.)
its_called_recoil.mp4 video by hard11 - Photobucket
(Note that in the slomo replay he is already turning his head away when he shoots so I assume it's like a stupid compeition - anyway, it's dumbass.)
its_called_recoil.mp4 video by hard11 - Photobucket
Christ Keith mate - what a retard!
That guy is the reasoning behind why most animals eat their young!
What, you think you WON? Ron, you need to go back and read the things you wrote. You obviously don't pay attention to what I say and "the context" I say them in, let alone your own writing. In your mind you may have WON, but in reality you're far from it. And by the way, I'm not saying that I won. I'm not trying to "win." I'm trying to have a discussion. Realize that, then please take part in the discussion. That's part of what I meant by my 3 year old comment.
YOU need to wake up and smell the coffee. Sarah Palin is close to becoming a president of this country. SHE is an excellent example of someone who has no problem bringing HER religious beliefs into my life. Case in point: if I'm a vegetable in a hospital bed sucking money out of my family's bank account and prolonging their and my own suffering, no one in the world but ME has the inalienable right to make that choice (of pulling the plug.) If I push that right onto my family to legally make that decision on my behalf because of the state I'm in, that's MY choice, not Sarah's, not anyone else's. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU BELIEVE IN TAKING THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM ME TOO. I don't know what you believe.
This isn't about YOU. This isn't about me. This is about everyone in this country having the right to make their own choices. Those choices may be religiously bound, they may not; I DON'T CARE. What I do care about is someone else keeping me from making a choice I should be able to make, especially when the reason for taking that right away from me is religious based. When that happens, the Constitution no longer protects me and others like me (the religious clause.) Religion cannot be argued with; it cannot be reasoned with. It is what it is; there is no room for debate. I live by reason and thought, not millenia-old baseless dogma. AND AGAIN - I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU LIVE BY MILLENIA-OLD BASELESS DOGMA.
It seems like you and I are actually on the same side of the fence regarding many of these topics. Stop taking my writing as personal attacks on you and you will begin to see what I've been saying all along.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Many a true word spoken in jest. Very prophetic.
