Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

**guido tkp** · March 6th, 2013

i realize the futility one might feel when, no matter often one states little things like basic facts and well-grounded ideas that move the paradigm forward ( instead of insipidly backwards ) one finds themsleves sitting at that blank wall of numbness...and the wall just seems higher...and the task seems seems awfully overwhelming...

but, please remember...for some, that is the every nature of their game: not to win minds of those smart enough to already know better...but to obtusely turn off those very same in order to more easily have thier sway with the remainder

when the smart ones throw up thier hands in disgust and walk away...we all wake up 30 years down the line and their are people who think supply side economics works...there isn't any racism...cutting taxes gets better pay and more jobs...and is perfectly safe to drill, baby, drill right off the coast of your favorite vacation spot...

leave the lecturn...and only the idiots speak

**exzel** · March 6th, 2013

Originally Posted by Shasta

Nope. No historical inaccuracy. But my answer to the question would have been:

Because, even though this country was based on religious freedoms, for some reason we somehow still became a country of "god" and, while a lot of the rules made sense then, most people get all kinds of crazy if you try to discuss updating the consitution or bill of rights to reflect society today.

Even the bible had a new testament.

So, just because it's historically accurate your answer is still very much based on your oppinion, as is mine.

I don’t quite understand why you feel that even though my answer was historically accurate, that it is based on my opinion, but I respect your opinion that you feel it might.

And it’s okay that you have current ideas and opinions that you may feel should be taken into consideration regarding a discussion on the bill of rights. And I like the analogy of the bible, as the new testament doesn’t pretend to reinvent the old testament. (And I will not respond with the seemingly recent protocol here of insinuating that opposing political viewpoints are indicative of a dangerous type of thinking that is representative of a maniacal mindless moron deserving of being beheaded, drawn and quartered, and having their entrails cut out and burned… or just something flippant statement like “Speak for your damn self.” Or that opposition to such viewpoints are somehow deserving of sainthood for that matter

).

**hossenpepper** · March 6th, 2013

Originally Posted by Moderator

I'm out. As I said in one of the other threads, I am at the point of recognizing that I am not conceding that I do not have valid arguments but am at the point of realizing they will be an exercise in futility.

Here ya go MM... If you didn't before, now you understand why and what it means to me...

Click image for larger version.

Name: burrito.jpg
Views: 3
Size: 32.4 KB
ID: 17009

**Robert Gray** · March 6th, 2013

Originally Posted by exzel

I don’t quite understand why you feel that even though my answer was historically accurate, that it is based on my opinion, but I respect your opinion that you feel it might.

It wasn't entirely historically accurate. It is a projection of limited social studies and history classes given in the 6th through 7th grade in the United States. An actual study of the time period, the people involved, and the politics of the situation tells a very different story. The scope of the information goes far beyond this medium (and my patience) to present. It suffices to say your insertion of God in the context you did was not all that accurate. Our so-called Founding Fathers were in fact a large group of diverse people with beliefs as varied as their stations in life. There were Deists, Atheists, Agnostics, a large variety of Christian denominations, and several who were members of the legendary Hellfire Club. The Constitution did not include a right to bear arms or any of those things we consider of paramount importance. That is why they are amendments, i.e. the first. The document was already evolving and changing. Not everyone agreed with each of those amendments either. Agreement was reached by compromise, i.e. the same kind of compromises that safeguarded slavery in the United States (an insult to the very nature of the freedoms espoused) until the Civil War. The rights themselves, and how they are seen, have come to be interpreted in countless different ways. We certainly don't see or understand them as our Founding Fathers did.

And it’s okay that you have current ideas and opinions that you may feel should be taken into consideration regarding a discussion on the bill of rights.

Are you suggesting that there is no difference between now and then? Shall I bring all of them online here for us to tear them apart? Do you really want to bronze this notion that the document was perfect and didn't need to be changed?

And I like the analogy of the bible, as the new testament doesn’t pretend to reinvent the old testament. (And I will not respond with the seemingly recent protocol here of insinuating that opposing political viewpoints are indicative of a dangerous type of thinking that is representative of a maniacal mindless moron deserving of being beheaded, drawn and quartered, and having their entrails cut out and burned… or just something flippant statement like “Speak for your damn self.” Or that opposition to such viewpoints are somehow deserving of sainthood for that matter

).

In summary, you don't want to respond to the suggestions that you are nuts? That seems a fair enough response. I suppose we could do a variation on the old saying and make it, "It is better to remain silent and be thought mad, than to continue speaking and remove all doubt." I agree with a statement Mr. King made in Danse Macabre where he stated he thinks we are all mad. Some of us are just better at hiding it than others. This came to mind in our discussion because it was relevant in another discussion. The simple truth is that there is very little we (who disagree with you) can say that actually makes you look any worse than the things you say yourself. We cannot gild this crazy rose.

**Moderator** · March 6th, 2013

Let's all back off on the crazy talk.

**Shasta** · March 6th, 2013

Originally Posted by exzel

I don’t quite understand why you feel that even though my answer was historically accurate, that it is based on my opinion, but I respect your opinion that you feel it might.

My "agreed" was simply an indication that, while a lot of people feel that the right to bear arms is a god given right, many don't, and it shouldn't be presented as a fact that it is just because it's written down somewhere.

If I perceived what you were saying incorrectly, then I apologize, but it came across as "god said it so our forefathers knew it had to protected and that's the end of story."

**hossenpepper** · March 6th, 2013

Originally Posted by Shasta

My "agreed" was simply an indication that, while a lot of people feel that the right to bear arms is a god given right, many don't, and it shouldn't be presented as a fact that it is just because it's written down somewhere.

Awesome!

If I perceived what you were saying incorrectly, then I apologize, but it came across as "god said it so our forefathers knew it had to protected and that's the end of story."

You didn't mis-perceive anything. This is exactly the attitude and stance on this issue of many on the advocacy side. This is why we can't have a reasonable debate.

The only thing they tend to see as being needed is moving further away from the opposing camp's position. Which, of course, is the definition of governance by compromise.

Show Spoiler