0
Driver1

Another mass shooting...

Recommended Posts

jakee

*********Why? That was as far as I thought about it. Paddock is a total mystery.

The positives, from the progressive left POV, are that society would be so freaked out they would demand gun confiscation. The economy would suffer and Soros would make $Ms more on currency exchanges.

It is not better than the reality. It is just as far as I rationalized it. Then I went back to my morning devotionals.



If it is not better than reality, what do you mean when you say it is your 'best' fantasy?

Do you mean you think it is the most likely explanation?

No

So a best fantasy isn't the thing you want to be true. A best fantasy isn't the thing you imagine is most likely to be true.

What is the meaning of the term best fantasy?

It is not a best fantasy. It was my best fantasy. It was what I did with my mind with the information available, which was nothing.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

************Why? That was as far as I thought about it. Paddock is a total mystery.

The positives, from the progressive left POV, are that society would be so freaked out they would demand gun confiscation. The economy would suffer and Soros would make $Ms more on currency exchanges.

It is not better than the reality. It is just as far as I rationalized it. Then I went back to my morning devotionals.



If it is not better than reality, what do you mean when you say it is your 'best' fantasy?

Do you mean you think it is the most likely explanation?

No

So a best fantasy isn't the thing you want to be true. A best fantasy isn't the thing you imagine is most likely to be true.

What is the meaning of the term best fantasy?

It is not a best fantasy. It was my best fantasy. It was what I did with my mind with the information available, which was nothing.

If your best fantasy is not a best fantasy, why did you call it your best fantasy?

But whatever, if your best fantasy is not what you want to be true, nor what you think most likely to be true, what is the meaning of the term "best fantasy"? I know what makes it a fantasy, but in what way is it the best?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee

***************Why? That was as far as I thought about it. Paddock is a total mystery.

The positives, from the progressive left POV, are that society would be so freaked out they would demand gun confiscation. The economy would suffer and Soros would make $Ms more on currency exchanges.

It is not better than the reality. It is just as far as I rationalized it. Then I went back to my morning devotionals.



If it is not better than reality, what do you mean when you say it is your 'best' fantasy?

Do you mean you think it is the most likely explanation?

No

So a best fantasy isn't the thing you want to be true. A best fantasy isn't the thing you imagine is most likely to be true.

What is the meaning of the term best fantasy?

It is not a best fantasy. It was my best fantasy. It was what I did with my mind with the information available, which was nothing.

If your best fantasy is not a best fantasy, why did you call it your best fantasy?

But whatever, if your best fantasy is not what you want to be true, nor what you think most likely to be true, what is the meaning of the term "best fantasy"? I know what makes it a fantasy, but in what way is it the best?

It is what it is jakee. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar as Freud put it.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

It is what it is jakee.


So why do you refuse to say what it is? You've said what it doesn't mean, but not what it does mean. So far the conversation has gone something like this;

J: Ron, what did you eat for breakfast today?
R: Breakfast is the first meal of the day.
J: Ron, I asked what you ate for breakfast.
R: I eat breakfast at 7.30AM
J: But Ron, what did you eat?
R: I've told you all about it already, why are you still asking?

Quote

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar as Freud put it.


So why are you trying to pretend the adjective is not an adjective?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be careful, you could see “fire and brimstone” for teasing Ron. Similar to this Jim Bakker warning:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jim-bakker-stop-making-fun-of-me_us_59e593f3e4b0a2324d1d2f54

The article quoted the pastor as saying:

“One day, you’re going to shake your fist in God’s face. And you’re going to say, ‘God, why didn’t you warn me?’ He’s gonna say, ‘You sat there and you made fun of Jim Bakker RonD1120 all those years. I warned you, but you didn’t listen.’”
"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

Quote

I don't, it is an educated guess based on your postings. You are obviously free to now lie about all the loved ones that were murdered in mass shootings and how thankful you are they died for your "freedom".



Good talk.

Derek V



Not really.

The talk with you on this subject follows the same path each time. You pretend you want to have an open and honest conversation about the matter. Then when you talk yourself into a corner you say: 2nd amendment, nana nanana.

Not sure why you would think people would continue to try and have a decent conversation with you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>No. For the same reason I would not vote yes for a requirement for insurance for free speech

OK, let's think about that analogy.

To exercise a basic right of free speech - say, to post something on the Internet - you don't need insurance, a permit, any inspections or anything. And that is indeed protected under the first amendment. There may be consequences OF your free speech, of course. If you say "Joe Smith is a rapist and here's a picture of him doing it!" - and the picture is photoshopped - you may end up in court for libel.

To exercise a slightly more dangerous right of free speech - say, to have a protest parade - often you need a permit. Just because that can cause traffic jams and accidents, can put people on the parade route at risk, and has a higher chance of leading to someone getting hurt. So there's a permit process to allow coordination with traffic and police.

Or consider building a billboard and erecting it over Times Square because your message is really, really important. The First Amendment protects your right to do that. But expect to have to pass building code inspections, follow local laws for how big the billboard has to be, and get insurance for it. Not because anyone wants to "deny your First Amendment rights" - but because your billboard, if it fell into Times Square due to shoddy construction, could kill a dozen people. Yes, the First Amendment is an important amendment - but when it comes to protecting people's lives, it takes a back seat.

Likewise, no one is trying to regulate guns because they want to "deny your Second Amendment rights." They are trying to keep other people from getting killed, to preserve THEIR right to life (and to free speech, and to own guns.) And right now, every year, 30,000 people lose all those rights due to gun deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One difference though: use versus possession.

Gun owners aren’t arguing over laws about use of a firearm against another person in cases other than self defense, many are for tougher penalties for criminal use, what they are arguing over are laws that criminalize just possession either in their homes or in public.

If we were to begin to attempt to equate speech rights to current gun laws/policy:

Before being even allowed just the right to legally speak (but not actually speak, that’s a whole different set of laws) you must submit to a government background check. If you pass, depending where you live, there are certain words that are illegal to even know, even if you knew them before, and only so many words can be used at a time. Your right to speak in public is not allowed legally in “speech free zones.”
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Before being even allowed just the right to legally speak (but not actually speak, that’s a
>whole different set of laws) you must submit to a government background check.

Well, to extend my example above, you do not need any permission to just talk on a streetcorner or post on the web. (Or to obtain such a right.) If you want to have a protest parade, you need a permit BEFORE the parade - before you wave a single banner. If you want to put up a big billboard, you might need a permit AND some building inspections AND have to follow a bunch of zoning and safety laws - again, before you so much as paint a single word on that billboard. If you want to buy a TV station to air your views, you have to follow SEC rules, get a background check done, get approval from the FCC, get regular inspections etc etc.

In all cases, the state is not regulating your right to free speech because they wish to silence people - the state is regulating how that speech is done to protect the public from harm. Talking on a streetcorner? Unlikely to harm people; unregulated. Building a billboard over Times Square? High potential to harm people if done haphazardly - so regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Re: “It's a terrible, terrible thing what's going on with hate in our country, frankly, and all over the world. And something has to be done." Donald Trump


What could be done about that?

"knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

"I'd like to punch him in the face."

"Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" (about man who attacked a reporter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Quote

Re: “It's a terrible, terrible thing what's going on with hate in our country, frankly, and all over the world. And something has to be done." Donald Trump


What could be done about that?

"knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

"I'd like to punch him in the face."

"Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" (about man who attacked a reporter)



He said those things more than 4 seconds ago. You can't expect him to remember every little thing he's said or hold him to them! Don't be ridiculous!
Hell, Obama probably said it first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FBI Agent’s Association: "It is time to treat domestic terrorism as the national threat that it is...and punish political violence at the federal level. Winning the fight against domestic terrorism is not about parties or political views; it is about ending political violence.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homeland Security is focused on foreign people with brown skin, however Americans real threat to safety seems to be more with domestic nutcase white men.

Between FLA bomber, PA shooter and Kroger guy that’s three in the space of a day.
"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Quote

Re: “It's a terrible, terrible thing what's going on with hate in our country, frankly, and all over the world. And something has to be done." Donald Trump


What could be done about that?

"knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

"I'd like to punch him in the face."

"Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" (about man who attacked a reporter)



Yes, The Deadly Consequences of Dog-Whistle Politics
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/27/the-deadly-consequences-of-dog-whistle-politics/

Poland, the US, non-critical minds led and manipulated by political agendas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good quote from a completely unrelated book I am reading:

"The Cities hadn’t always been broken. People broke it. First they called people traitors and said they didn’t belong. Said these people were good and those people were evil, and it kept going, because people always responded, and pretty soon the place was a roaring hell because no one took responsibility for what they did, and how it would drive others to respond."

Now we have Trump supporters trying to murder democrats. We have white nationalists - who Trump calls "very fine people" - actually murdering protesters. And after you threaten enough people, and kill enough people, you get a response. And the last thing any Trump supporter will ever do is accept responsibility for that response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He also wrote, "a world in which, despite drastic changes, people remain essentially the same." Which goes along with Derek's points. There will always be those who follow the law regarding firearms and those who don't.

Making more gun laws is not going to change the nutters who have no regard for the law.

Let's make a law that - If during the commission of a crime you use a gun = the death penalty. The next day, some nutter will commit that crime.
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi Keith,

Quote

some nutter will commit that crime.



However, what you fail to address is, if with stiffer gun laws, how many nutters/non-nutters will not commit a crime.

The devil is in the details,

Jerry Baumchen


Not to mention how many nutters will be "eliminated".



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jerry,

From my perspective; additional new laws for the non-nutters "may" result in them becoming criminals. I once read where every one of us commits an unknown crime every day. After awhile, you just can't keep up. Over the years, gun laws have been combined into broader acts. However, if you broke out each provision of each act at the federal, state, and local level the number of gun laws gets ridiculous. My suspicion is - you may have never met a really truly nutter - they really have no thought process about right from wrong.

Let's look at one now-in-the-news example - The immigrant caravan. Up until 1985, there was no official regulation of gun ownership and possession by private citizens of the Honduran Constitution of 1965. The new constitution in 1982, which stated, "No one may possess or carry weapons without the permission of the competent authority." (partial quote from Wiki) and my experience down there in the 80's.

After that; the laws became more restrictive. Even to the point where one could only purchase a weapon from La Armeria (the Armory) which is the only outlet authorized to import and sell firearms in Honduras and is run by the armed forces.

Now, the citizens CAN own weapons, but Honduras developed a national database of all purchases, which was done from La Armeria, in which the database is run by La Armeria. So, speak out against Daniel Ortega and his cronies and see if you can own one or not have it confiscated if you cross the wrong person in "competent authority."

Freedom of press/expression is a constitutional right in Honduras. EXCEPT for that pesky desacato (disrespect) provision, which aimed to protect the honor of public officials. Other restrictive press laws can be used to punish journalists who report on sensitive issues such as government corruption, drug trafficking, and human rights abuses.

Now, the Democrat side in the U.S. hollers, "Look what they're running from!!!" Open our borders!!! Let those poor oppressed people in!!! It all began with a people who could not fight back. Who could not fight for their rights. Nor, protect themselves from the gangs and criminals because of restrictive gun laws.


Keith

edit: Grammar
Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0