Do You Have a Gun, Know How To Answer.
- Thread starter Doberluv
- Start date
Article IV http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section2
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Really. The tone of (collective your) replies may seem mild/reasonable but that's not how everyone reads it. Read Dober's responses - she's definitely feeling attacked and I would, too. Too sensitive - maybe - but what is wrong with having some consideration for others' feelings? Why can't one agree to disagree without stomping the other person into the ground?
Seriously? In this whole thread it's It's OUR posts that seem to want to stomp others into the ground? Try reading her posts again.
Sensitive people shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. And it's not like her replies actually seemed sad throughout the conversation, stubborn and angry maybe.
People have been replying with relative control considering the kind of stuff that she posted. Not changing the constitution, I do believe we were also called sheep, and of course the usual total undertone of being brainwashed idiots who are going to ruin this precious country. She seems to be really broken up by the amount of people she has insulted and offended in this thread, really.. I can feel her hurt (blatant sarcasm)
But hey, maybe I should just smile and say thank you next time someone calls me a brainwashed sheep who should leave the country she has every right to live in just because she disagrees with them.
I for one am CONTAINING myself because of her past posting history and how these threads always go.
But if she really is hurt by what's been said in this thread, than she is certainly not alone.
Sensitive people shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. And it's not like her replies actually seemed sad throughout the conversation, stubborn and angry maybe.
People have been replying with relative control considering the kind of stuff that she posted. Not changing the constitution, I do believe we were also called sheep, and of course the usual total undertone of being brainwashed idiots who are going to ruin this precious country. She seems to be really broken up by the amount of people she has insulted and offended in this thread, really.. I can feel her hurt (blatant sarcasm)
But hey, maybe I should just smile and say thank you next time someone calls me a brainwashed sheep who should leave the country she has every right to live in just because she disagrees with them.
I for one am CONTAINING myself because of her past posting history and how these threads always go.
But if she really is hurt by what's been said in this thread, than she is certainly not alone.
This is my most hated part of interacting on the internet - other people projecting tone and intent on posts.
Why can't one disagree with someone, and debate about it, without that being "stomping the other person into the ground"? If someone posts something factually incorrect pertaining to a controversial topic, why does the ensuing (and, one might say, expected) debate equal "stomping the other person into the ground"? Why isn't it just... lively debate? Because someone posted a giant sad face?
There's nothing to "agree to disagree" about factually incorrect information. And as Fran pointed out, Doberluv can certainly dish out. Why that's not vitriol perplexes me, honestly, but I usually just try to ignore it.
Why can't one disagree with someone, and debate about it, without that being "stomping the other person into the ground"? If someone posts something factually incorrect pertaining to a controversial topic, why does the ensuing (and, one might say, expected) debate equal "stomping the other person into the ground"? Why isn't it just... lively debate? Because someone posted a giant sad face?
There's nothing to "agree to disagree" about factually incorrect information. And as Fran pointed out, Doberluv can certainly dish out. Why that's not vitriol perplexes me, honestly, but I usually just try to ignore it.
:hail::hail::hail:
I for one am not a sheep. I research and verify things. I may come to a different conclusion than others and have different ideas on what is right, but I try my best NOT to pass along false fear mongering propaganda and yes, have little tolerance for those who purposely do. Its divide and conquer...we are ALL in this together (the whole world, not leaving nonUS citizens out
) and need to work on finding common goals. We should try to see the positives and the good and not go dehumanizing (ie calling them sheep and ostriches, etc) someone who believes differently from you.I fully admit I am not perfect haha....I at times lump certain people all together. But I try very hard to see past that. I try very hard to accept things that may SOUND good to my beliefs but are not true. Propaganda is a VERY dangerous thing. The human mind is funny....many people hear something and even later if they find out it is false they dont believe that...they stick with what they originally heard. Just like how many people still believe there were WMD in Iraq or other things like that.
Every single time she posts anything about how the government is taking over our lives, she gets the exact same response, and does nothing but call everybody else brainwashed sheep. When really, the only life the government is taking over is hers, because she allows them that power.
You'd think somebody would learn. I mean, heck, even my dog learned not to touch the oven after she burned herself once.
You'd think somebody would learn. I mean, heck, even my dog learned not to touch the oven after she burned herself once.
:hail::hail::hail:
I for one am not a sheep. I research and verify things. I may come to a different conclusion than others and have different ideas on what is right, but I try my best NOT to pass along false fear mongering propaganda and yes, have little tolerance for those who purposely do. Its divide and conquer...we are ALL in this together (the whole world, not leaving nonUS citizens out ) and need to work on finding common goals. We should try to see the positives and the good and not go dehumanizing (ie calling them sheep and ostriches, etc) someone who believes differently from you.
I fully admit I am not perfect haha....I at times lump certain people all together. But I try very hard to see past that. I try very hard to accept things that may SOUND good to my beliefs but are not true. Propaganda is a VERY dangerous thing. The human mind is funny....many people hear something and even later if they find out it is false they dont believe that...they stick with what they originally heard. Just like how many people still believe there were WMD in Iraq or other things like that.
I for one am not a sheep. I research and verify things. I may come to a different conclusion than others and have different ideas on what is right, but I try my best NOT to pass along false fear mongering propaganda and yes, have little tolerance for those who purposely do. Its divide and conquer...we are ALL in this together (the whole world, not leaving nonUS citizens out
) and need to work on finding common goals. We should try to see the positives and the good and not go dehumanizing (ie calling them sheep and ostriches, etc) someone who believes differently from you.I fully admit I am not perfect haha....I at times lump certain people all together. But I try very hard to see past that. I try very hard to accept things that may SOUND good to my beliefs but are not true. Propaganda is a VERY dangerous thing. The human mind is funny....many people hear something and even later if they find out it is false they dont believe that...they stick with what they originally heard. Just like how many people still believe there were WMD in Iraq or other things like that.
Well said.
Maybe I am wrong, but i believe the parents of the 20 children shot and killed today , may just disagree with you (May they rest in peace)..
All I am saying is if it were a little harder to get your hands on a gun, it may prevent some of these things from happening. Was there not another shooting in the USA yesterday in a mall ?
I realize that no matter what laws are in place, bad sh*t is still going to happen, but.. I dont know. No gun control... is just.. A BAD IDEA.
also, just out of curiousity, Ive been keeping up with what they are saying about the shooting today. So far what i have been hearing/seeing are people saying how there should be better programs available for the mentally ill and that all of this could have been prevented if those programs were bettter.
Yet, They also state that the shooter was an honor student, with a very clean record and no history of any mental illness. So, how could have better mental illness programs have helped this man, When there was no history of him having a mental illness?
So which would seem more effective in this particular case? MOre gun control? Or better mental illness programs ?
hmmm... so hard to answer that hey? (dripping with sarcasm)
It IS hard to get a gun legally. It is NOT hard to get a gun illegally. Hell it's hard to get pepper spray in this state. Did this guy have the guns legally?
The problem with the gun control is if I am in my house, and I hear someone breaking in downstairs...what am I going to do, grab a knife and hope they don't have a gun? What if one of those teachers had a gun? It might have saved 10 of those kids. The problem is not the gun, it is these people. No doubt if he didn't have a gun, maybe he would have made a bomb or done something else.
I thought the brother said Adam Lanza was developmentally disabled? He said this on his Facebook feed. Not that I'm saying it is OK, but if this is the case..a skewed sense of reality might be the issue here. Well obviously anyone who opens fire in a classroom probably has a skewed sense of reality anyway.
Possibly better security measures is the key to prevent this from happening again. I don't know how he accessed the school but assuming he was able to walk in since he was the teacher's son. Very very sad.
The problem with the gun control is if I am in my house, and I hear someone breaking in downstairs...what am I going to do, grab a knife and hope they don't have a gun? What if one of those teachers had a gun? It might have saved 10 of those kids. The problem is not the gun, it is these people. No doubt if he didn't have a gun, maybe he would have made a bomb or done something else.
I thought the brother said Adam Lanza was developmentally disabled? He said this on his Facebook feed. Not that I'm saying it is OK, but if this is the case..a skewed sense of reality might be the issue here. Well obviously anyone who opens fire in a classroom probably has a skewed sense of reality anyway.
Possibly better security measures is the key to prevent this from happening again. I don't know how he accessed the school but assuming he was able to walk in since he was the teacher's son. Very very sad.
Its not that hard to get a gun in a lot of states. CT though, is one of the more difficult ones (legally).
Some of the lowest murder rates are in VT, NH, and UT, which have rather lax laws. Other states with lax laws have really high rates, MS, AL. California and Texas have near identical murder rates with very different laws.
It is a very complicated issue intertwined with poverty and mental health.
Some of the lowest murder rates are in VT, NH, and UT, which have rather lax laws. Other states with lax laws have really high rates, MS, AL. California and Texas have near identical murder rates with very different laws.
It is a very complicated issue intertwined with poverty and mental health.
While I am in support of certain limited gun control (the constitution guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, but doesn't say they can be any kind of arms you feel like bearing no matter who you are), I don't know that more gun control would have been the answer here. This guy shot himself, no one stopped him-he could have done tons of damage with a shot gun, which is a common hunting weapon. I'm guessing this was something he planned, and someone so hell bent on evil that he shots his own mother, THEN drives to an elementary school and essentially executes 26 innocents, 20 of them children, is not going to be deterred by having a few extra hoops to jump through to get his weaponry, IMHO.
Ok I'm not debating for or against gun control, but I had to address this. Sure, it could have saved 10 kids. It could have also killed another 10 kids. In a panic, in confusion, with children around, that could have been a very, very bad idea, unless the teacher not only had a gun, but also had *very* good aim.
Just wanted to chime in that reportedly the guns were obtained - legally - by the shooter's mother. Of course, there are many reports right now and often new information comes out later that contradicts previous information, so it's not 100% if that is true or not. So I hesitate to make many statements on what happened outside of the fact that the shooter was obviously a very sick individual and it is devastating what has happened.
