independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another School Shooting
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 13 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 11/20/19 5:29pm

cborgman

avatar

IanRG said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:




sexton said:




Except you're wrong. And now you're trying to backtrack from your misinformed statement with more of your word games.

Congratulations on derailing another thread by having people argue with you about something unrelated to the original topic. You seem to get off on this disruptive behavior so I will no longer engage with you on this subject.




wrong. I said speeding not accidents. I did not derail this I made a comparison that you failed to grasp.



.


What is the purpose of laws to reduce speeding?


Hes pretending to ignore you. Its what he does when he knows he can not possibly win an argument
bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 11/20/19 11:50pm

BombSquad

avatar

cborgman said:

IanRG said:

.

What is the purpose of laws to reduce speeding?

Hes pretending to ignore you. Its what he does when he knows he can not possibly win an argument

which is in, well... each and every fucking thread LOL

biggest chicken ever

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 11/22/19 9:24pm

wildgoldenhone
y

poppys said:



maplenpg said:




wildgoldenhoney said:


In post no.7, I mentioned besides spiritual and moral, a few other factors that i mentioned are contributing factors. I also agree with a few other factors others have mentioned, so I agree that it's more than just one thing that's breeding this type of behavior. To add to that, I mentioned the spiritual aspect as well. And I'm not disagreeing that laws would help curb some deaths from gun violence or even violence, period.

In fact, laws would help but not just to control actions because before a person takes action, the thoughts are conceived in their mind and heart. So to change the actions, one needs to change the thoughts. Do you think a law from the government can change a person from wanting to inflict harm and death or express their anger or hatred on others?

Probably not if people aren't happy with their government. And,so if this is a spiritual/moral problem, then the changes can only come about through a higher power. I don't think any government has been successful in changing people's hearts and actions except one. 😁 You know where I'm going with this.



Having worked in a high security jail I agree with this from your post #7.

Anger is a ingrained trait that we all have but they just don't know to control themselves or their impulses.

Yet there is a difference between highly calculated mass shootings where manifestos have been written etc... and a man who shoots his wife and kids in a fit of temper. The anger might be a commonality, but usually one is committed when emotions are high, and are often being expressed outwardly (shouting, screaming etc...), whereas the other is a deep-rooted, often silent anger that builds inside, and maybe is only shared with a select few in some buried site on the dark web. Even just addressing anger is complex, and many wouldn't agree that they need help, therefore though I agree, short of education, I don't see much changing with regards anger. I do wonder if something could be done to build self-worth though.

To address the bold in this post, there are ways we can change thoughts - the US could start by getting rid of the ridiculous notion that you need guns to protect yourself from the boogieman. This argument is fundementally flawed. In the UK we are hearing this argument all the time with knife crime. i.e. "I carry a knife to protect myself from others carrying knives", and guess who are the ones getting killed? Yep, it's those with knives. The way to stop knife crime is not for more people to carry knives, just as the way to stop gun crime is not to encourage the idea that more people need to carry guns.

Stricter gun laws would mean less guns in society, and IMO that cannot be a bad thing. If a man in a fit of temper cannot reach into his drawer and pull out a shotgun to kill his family, then the family just might be saved. If a child cannot access his parent's guns (kept in case the boogieman calls) then he might just not shoot his schoolfriends. There are reasons we restrict access to things in life, and if stricter gun laws save lives (as has been proved in the Western world, Australia probably being the best example), then I don't understand the pushback.

But hey, thoughts and prayers, and waiting for that higher power to do something seems to have been the standard response so far, I honestly don't think it's going to change anytime soon. Meanwhile more kids, or others, are going to end up cold stone dead.




Was thinking the same thing, you said it better.


To be honest, changing man made laws will take time. Then there is disagreement and red tape before any changes are made. Who is to say that if the law changes that people's mentality will change? There are a lot of mentally ill or desperate people who resort to violence, and who see no other way. It seems like this 'trend' is the new suicide for those who hate and are mentally sick, some take others down with them, especially those who hurt or 'alienated' them.

In the meantime, while we are waiting for the government to change laws, people are still being killed.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just stating observations, non politically because I don't have faith in human laws. There is always a political motive behind everything.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 11/23/19 9:15am

poppys

wildgoldenhoney said:


To be honest, changing man made laws will take time. Then there is disagreement and red tape before any changes are made. Who is to say that if the law changes that people's mentality will change? There are a lot of mentally ill or desperate people who resort to violence, and who see no other way. It seems like this 'trend' is the new suicide for those who hate and are mentally sick, some take others down with them, especially those who hurt or 'alienated' them. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the government to change laws, people are still being killed. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just stating observations, non politically because I don't have faith in human laws. There is always a political motive behind everything.


And who do you think will change those man made laws? If you are talking about a higher power taking over and ordering what happens here on earth, that is not a shared belief that all people have. That is your personal belief.

Saying
that politics is a bad thing will not change what politics actually are. The messy way people of differing views try to govern themselves. You can swap out any other word you want for the word politics, it will still exist because people don't agree on every aspect of life and governance, and never will.

The opposite of government is anarchy. If you want one person to have ultimate say over others, you are talking about a monarchy, or totalitarian government. Politics may be upsetting to you but it is the back and forth of daily life and can be negative or positive depending on circumstances and who is participating.

You stil have not said what you think about controlling the possession and use of the overflowing number of guns in the United States as other countries with far far less gun related deaths do.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 11/23/19 10:09am

wildgoldenhone
y

Are you requiring that I take a stance? Why does everyone have to have a stance? I already mentioned that my feelings doesn't have any bearing on what is going to happen through Divine intervention.

And check this out, anyone's opinions don't have any bearing on what God does. Do you really think God will think 'politically correctly'? Whatever your belief or not belief, does not have any bearing on what God decides to do. I mean like, can a puny human such as you or me have control on what God decided? Yeah, no!

Whether a person decides not to 'share' a belief, it does not change truth of what God will do. If it's already put into place by the higher power, it is the truth and eventuality of man made laws. It trumps politics.

Why would there be anarchy if God took over for good? He would have control and willing people will comply with the law to not kill their neighbors. God's government is superior to human governments. And it is a monarchy.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 11/23/19 10:24am

poppys

wildgoldenhoney said:


To be honest, changing man made laws will take time. Then there is disagreement and red tape before any changes are made. Who is to say that if the law changes that people's mentality will change? There are a lot of mentally ill or desperate people who resort to violence, and who see no other way. It seems like this 'trend' is the new suicide for those who hate and are mentally sick, some take others down with them, especially those who hurt or 'alienated' them. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the government to change laws, people are still being killed. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just stating observations, non politically because I don't have faith in human laws. There is always a political motive behind everything.


And who do you think will change those man made laws? If you are talking about a higher power taking over and ordering what happens here on earth, that is not a shared belief that all people have. That is your personal belief.

Saying
that politics is a bad thing will not change what politics actually are. The messy way people of differing views try to govern themselves. You can swap out any other word you want for the word politics, it will still exist because people don't agree on every aspect of life and governance, and never will.

The opposite of government is anarchy. If you want one person to have ultimate say over others, you are talking about a monarchy, or totalitarian government. Politics may be upsetting to you but it is the back and forth of daily life and can be negative or positive depending on circumstances and who is participating.

You stil have not said what you think about controlling the possession and use of the overflowing number of guns in the United States as other countries with far far less gun related deaths do.

wildgoldenhoney said:

Are you requiring that I take a stance? Why does everyone have to have a stance? I already mentioned that my feelings doesn't have any bearing on what is going to happen through Divine intervention. And check this out, anyone's opinions don't have any bearing on what God does. Do you really think God will think 'politically correctly'?

Whatever your belief or not belief, does not have any bearing on what God decides to do. I mean like, can a puny human such as you or me have control on what God decided? Yeah, no! Whether a person decides not to 'share' a belief, it does not change truth of what God will do.

If it's already put into place by the higher power, it is the truth and eventuality of man made laws. It trumps politics. Why would there be anarchy if God took over for good? He would have control and willing people will comply with the law to not kill their neighbors. God's government is superior to human governments. And it is a monarchy.


Cherry Moon maybe?

Ok, first, I don't believe in God the way you do. That is a fact you can't change for other people. I am asking you a question because this thread topic is about shootings - not God. If you don't have a stance, that's fine with me.

I did not say the opposite of God is anarchy. I said the opposite of government is anarchy, 2 very different things. And I never said anything about political correctness so that is a wild card in your post.

It is obvious I can't agree with your idea of what will happen in the world. Because I don't believe in God the same way you do. And there are a lot of us. This is way off topic anyway - start a religion thread if you like. This is about an actual shootng that happened.



"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 11/23/19 1:32pm

maplenpg

avatar

wildgoldenhoney said:

poppys said:


Was thinking the same thing, you said it better.

To be honest, changing man made laws will take time. Then there is disagreement and red tape before any changes are made. Who is to say that if the law changes that people's mentality will change? There are a lot of mentally ill or desperate people who resort to violence, and who see no other way. It seems like this 'trend' is the new suicide for those who hate and are mentally sick, some take others down with them, especially those who hurt or 'alienated' them. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the government to change laws, people are still being killed. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just stating observations, non politically because I don't have faith in human laws. There is always a political motive behind everything.

They should have changed the laws after Columbine. Change would be happening by now - and undoubtedly some of the dead would still be alive.

[Edited 11/23/19 13:33pm]

The second and third wave of the Spanish flu were far worse than the first wave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 11/23/19 2:59pm

wildgoldenhone
y

poppy's, recapping what I said and the reason for my responses, I believe that only discussing school shootings or just shootings itself (because shootings not only happen in schools but in workplaces etc also) is only addressing part of a problem. Sort of like going to the doctors to treat a pain but not the underlying reasons causing the pain. But you're surely free to continue to provide a band aid solution, I'm talking about lasting solutions. You are free to believe as you choose.

Whether or not I'm the orger Cherry Moon is irrelevant, so why bring it up? As far as I'm concerned, you are new here to me since I've come back to the org, especially if you don't recognize my username.

As regards to your comment about the opposite of government bring anarchy, I agreed and is therefore the reason why I mentioned God's government or monarchy as put it, which I believe. I didn't say that you had to accept it but you're recommending changing the law, fine. Although, I'm coming from a different standpoint which you obviously don't agree with but, There is no way you can disprove what I'm arguing for, you would need to understand where I'm coming from in order to do that. Again, you don't have to, but to argue that just because you don't have the same beliefs than what I believe doesn't offer a real solution and is still not considering things outside of your understanding. And that is fine. I'm not trying to make you believe what I believe, I'm just mentioning an avenue that you did not or would not consider because it's not what you believe. That's all.


TIP OF THE ICEBERG
[Edited 11/23/19 15:01pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 11/23/19 3:00pm

wildgoldenhone
y

maplenpg said:



wildgoldenhoney said:


poppys said:



Was thinking the same thing, you said it better.



To be honest, changing man made laws will take time. Then there is disagreement and red tape before any changes are made. Who is to say that if the law changes that people's mentality will change? There are a lot of mentally ill or desperate people who resort to violence, and who see no other way. It seems like this 'trend' is the new suicide for those who hate and are mentally sick, some take others down with them, especially those who hurt or 'alienated' them. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the government to change laws, people are still being killed. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just stating observations, non politically because I don't have faith in human laws. There is always a political motive behind everything.

They should have changed the laws after Columbine. Change would be happening by now - and undoubtedly some of the dead would still be alive.

[Edited 11/23/19 13:33pm]


Possibly
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 11/23/19 3:04pm

poppys

maplenpg said:

They should have changed the laws after Columbine. Change would be happening by now - and undoubtedly some of the dead would still be alive.


Most definitely. I think "God" would approve.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 11/23/19 3:08pm

poppys

wildgoldenhoney said:

poppy's, recapping what I said and the reason for my responses, I believe that only discussing school shootings or just shootings itself (because shootings not only happen in schools but in workplaces etc also) is only addressing part of a problem. Sort of like going to the doctors to treat a pain but not the underlying reasons causing the pain. But you're surely free to continue to provide a band aid solution, I'm talking about lasting solutions. You are free to believe as you choose. Whether or not I'm the orger Cherry Moon is irrelevant, so why bring it up? As far as I'm concerned, you are new here to me since I've come back to the org, especially if you don't recognize my username. As regards to your comment about the opposite of government bring anarchy, I agreed and is therefore the reason why I mentioned God's government or monarchy as put it, which I believe. I didn't say that you had to accept it but you're recommending changing the law, fine. Although, I'm coming from a different standpoint which you obviously don't agree with but, There is no way you can disprove what I'm arguing for, you would need to understand where I'm coming from in order to do that. Again, you don't have to, but to argue that just because you don't have the same beliefs than what I believe doesn't offer a real solution and is still not considering things outside of your understanding. And that is fine. I'm not trying to make you believe what I believe, I'm just mentioning an avenue that you did not or would not consider because it's not what you believe. That's all. TIP OF THE ICEBERG


Yeah, I'm out with this tangent of the thread. Your religious beliefs are your business. I am not trying to disprove anything. It simply does not concern me. You don't reply/quote or use paragraphs so it's hard to read and not much of a discussion anyway.

Guns are not political. They kill indiscriminately, in this case children. So the politics vs religion argument makes no sense to me. In my view, we get rid of the tool of violence as much as possible. Practical solution.

[Edited 11/23/19 15:39pm]

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 11/23/19 4:16pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

wildgoldenhoney said:

poppys said: To be honest, changing man made laws will take time. Then there is disagreement and red tape before any changes are made. Who is to say that if the law changes that people's mentality will change? There are a lot of mentally ill or desperate people who resort to violence, and who see no other way. It seems like this 'trend' is the new suicide for those who hate and are mentally sick, some take others down with them, especially those who hurt or 'alienated' them. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the government to change laws, people are still being killed. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just stating observations, non politically because I don't have faith in human laws. There is always a political motive behind everything.

They should have changed the laws after Columbine. Change would be happening by now - and undoubtedly some of the dead would still be alive.

[Edited 11/23/19 13:33pm]

what laws?

name 3 laws you would have changed!

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 11/23/19 4:17pm

PennyPurple

avatar

maplenpg said:

They should have changed the laws after Columbine. Change would be happening by now - and undoubtedly some of the dead would still be alive.

[Edited 11/23/19 13:33pm]

Hard to do when the NRA buys the politicians. sad

COME BACK RODEO COME BACK!

djThunderfunk said:
Not because of some silly milano on the org. lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 11/23/19 4:29pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:

wildgoldenhoney said:

poppy's, recapping what I said and the reason for my responses, I believe that only discussing school shootings or just shootings itself (because shootings not only happen in schools but in workplaces etc also) is only addressing part of a problem. Sort of like going to the doctors to treat a pain but not the underlying reasons causing the pain. But you're surely free to continue to provide a band aid solution, I'm talking about lasting solutions. You are free to believe as you choose. Whether or not I'm the orger Cherry Moon is irrelevant, so why bring it up? As far as I'm concerned, you are new here to me since I've come back to the org, especially if you don't recognize my username. As regards to your comment about the opposite of government bring anarchy, I agreed and is therefore the reason why I mentioned God's government or monarchy as put it, which I believe. I didn't say that you had to accept it but you're recommending changing the law, fine. Although, I'm coming from a different standpoint which you obviously don't agree with but, There is no way you can disprove what I'm arguing for, you would need to understand where I'm coming from in order to do that. Again, you don't have to, but to argue that just because you don't have the same beliefs than what I believe doesn't offer a real solution and is still not considering things outside of your understanding. And that is fine. I'm not trying to make you believe what I believe, I'm just mentioning an avenue that you did not or would not consider because it's not what you believe. That's all. TIP OF THE ICEBERG


Yeah, I'm out with this tangent of the thread. Your religious beliefs are your business. I am not trying to disprove anything. It simply does not concern me. You don't reply/quote or use paragraphs so it's hard to read and not much of a discussion anyway.

Guns are not political. They kill indiscriminately, in this case children. So the politics vs religion argument makes no sense to me. In my view, we get rid of the tool of violence as much as possible. Practical solution.

[Edited 11/23/19 15:39pm]

guns do not kill people.... we can argue the issues such as guns make it easier or more effective... sure. But if cops and bad guys have guns then we should be allowed to have them too.


I can also see that the way a gun looks can lead them to be used is some kinds of crimes...but there is not any reason other than how they LOOK... pure cosmetic.

Of course many are less than honest when the say they only want "Assault weapons" banned.. but then list features that apply to many other guns. Others just do not know what they are talking about.


Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 11/23/19 7:40pm

13cjk13

avatar

Fuck guns and the assholes that worship them.

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 11/23/19 7:47pm

maplenpg

avatar

wildgoldenhoney said:

poppy's, recapping what I said and the reason for my responses, I believe that only discussing school shootings or just shootings itself (because shootings not only happen in schools but in workplaces etc also) is only addressing part of a problem. Sort of like going to the doctors to treat a pain but not the underlying reasons causing the pain. But you're surely free to continue to provide a band aid solution, I'm talking about lasting solutions. You are free to believe as you choose. Whether or not I'm the orger Cherry Moon is irrelevant, so why bring it up? As far as I'm concerned, you are new here to me since I've come back to the org, especially if you don't recognize my username. As regards to your comment about the opposite of government bring anarchy, I agreed and is therefore the reason why I mentioned God's government or monarchy as put it, which I believe. I didn't say that you had to accept it but you're recommending changing the law, fine. Although, I'm coming from a different standpoint which you obviously don't agree with but, There is no way you can disprove what I'm arguing for, you would need to understand where I'm coming from in order to do that. Again, you don't have to, but to argue that just because you don't have the same beliefs than what I believe doesn't offer a real solution and is still not considering things outside of your understanding. And that is fine. I'm not trying to make you believe what I believe, I'm just mentioning an avenue that you did not or would not consider because it's not what you believe. That's all. TIP OF THE ICEBERG [Edited 11/23/19 15:01pm]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to respond to the bold anyway. Crime has been about throughout humanity. There are many reasons people commit crimes, especially murder, and I agree, gun laws would only be a small part of the solution. This response also applies to suicide. However, we cannot say a problem is so big, with so many factors, that doing nothing becomes an option. Something must be done. In my opinion, providing access to guns allows a quick and easy way to end your life, or that of your family, or even the lives of multiples of people. Taking that quick and easy access away is surely one step that would save lives. The rest of the Western world has done it. The US remains afraid of the boogieman.

The second and third wave of the Spanish flu were far worse than the first wave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 11/23/19 7:48pm

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

poppys said:


Yeah, I'm out with this tangent of the thread. Your religious beliefs are your business. I am not trying to disprove anything. It simply does not concern me. You don't reply/quote or use paragraphs so it's hard to read and not much of a discussion anyway.

Guns are not political. They kill indiscriminately, in this case children. So the politics vs religion argument makes no sense to me. In my view, we get rid of the tool of violence as much as possible. Practical solution.

[Edited 11/23/19 15:39pm]

guns do not kill people.... we can argue the issues such as guns make it easier or more effective... sure. But if cops and bad guys have guns then we should be allowed to have them too.


I can also see that the way a gun looks can lead them to be used is some kinds of crimes...but there is not any reason other than how they LOOK... pure cosmetic.

Of course many are less than honest when the say they only want "Assault weapons" banned.. but then list features that apply to many other guns. Others just do not know what they are talking about.


Of course guns kill people. What a stupid fucking statement.

The second and third wave of the Spanish flu were far worse than the first wave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 11/23/19 7:50pm

maplenpg

avatar

PennyPurple said:

maplenpg said:

They should have changed the laws after Columbine. Change would be happening by now - and undoubtedly some of the dead would still be alive.

[Edited 11/23/19 13:33pm]

Hard to do when the NRA buys the politicians. sad

Yup.

The second and third wave of the Spanish flu were far worse than the first wave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 11/23/19 7:53pm

maplenpg

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maplenpg said:

They should have changed the laws after Columbine. Change would be happening by now - and undoubtedly some of the dead would still be alive.

[Edited 11/23/19 13:33pm]

what laws?

name 3 laws you would have changed!

Look at the rest of the Western world and their gun laws. You could have that. Instead you want to stick with dead children. Sure we're not perfect with regard crime by any stretch of the imagination, but school shootings, and mass shootings, are a US problem.

The second and third wave of the Spanish flu were far worse than the first wave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 11/23/19 10:39pm

wildgoldenhone
y

poppys said:



wildgoldenhoney said:


poppy's.... That's all. TIP OF THE ICEBERG



.

Guns are not political. argument makes no sense to me.

[Edited 11/23/19 15:39pm]



The process of changing the laws can be political.

Someone mentioned NRA paying off politicians. Tell me that's not politics.

Politics are man made.

Man made laws have many flaws and loopholes that people use as a fulcrum to swing things in their favor for their personal advantage.

Beliefs aside, I don't trust politics and the people who make laws to get it right all the time.

But that's cool, we don't have to continue this conversation.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 11/23/19 10:53pm

wildgoldenhone
y

maplenpg said:



wildgoldenhoney said:


poppy's, recapping what I said and the reason for my responses, I believe that only discussing school shootings or just shootings itself (because shootings not only happen in schools but in workplaces etc also) is only addressing part of a problem. Sort of like going to the doctors to treat a pain but not the underlying reasons causing the pain. That's all. TIP OF THE ICEBERG [Edited 11/23/19 15:01pm]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to respond to the bold anyway. Crime has been about throughout humanity. There are many reasons people commit crimes, especially murder, and I agree, gun laws would only be a small part of the solution. This response also applies to suicide. However, we cannot say a problem is so big, with so many factors, that doing nothing becomes an option. Something must be done. In my opinion, providing access to guns allows a quick and easy way to end your life, or that of your family, or even the lives of multiples of people. Taking that quick and easy access away is surely one step that would save lives. The rest of the Western world has done it. The US remains afraid of the boogieman.


I agree, things have to change. But politics get in the way and so do those who misuse the laws and loopholes.

I see people all over the world dissatisfied with their government, protesting because they want change. What does the government do? They send in the troops. Has anything changed? I haven't seen much good come from those trying to make a change, possibly because opposing sides don't want change.

I know you are only talking about guns, gun laws but it really seems futile.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 11/24/19 1:11am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa laughably said without a clue of the irony:
Of course many are less than honest [...]


Sort of like that time several weeks ago when you declared deer rifles often have high capacity 100+ round mags, and when challenged, you linked to a Dutch machine gun mag from the 40s.


then list features that apply to many other guns.


Like that time several weeks ago when you declared deer rifles often have high capacity 100+ round mags, and when challenged, you linked to a Dutch machine gun mag from the 40s.

Others just do not know what they are talking about.


EXACTLY like that time several weeks ago when you declared deer rifles often have high capacity 100+ round mags, and when challenged, you linked to a Dutch machine gun mag from the 40s.

To paraphrase Oscar Hammerstein:
Fish gonna swim,
birds gonna fly.
Only gonna Only,
Even after caught in a lie.


Of course, he’ll prob threaten copyright infringement for paraphrasing Hammerstein, much like he threatened copyright infringement for quoting him in my sig, cause... not only does he have a piss-poor concept of law, Only gonna Only no matter how dishonest and ridiculous he makes himself look in the process.


.
[Edited 11/24/19 1:30am]
bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 11/24/19 1:12am

cborgman

avatar

maplenpg said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:




poppys said:




Yeah, I'm out with this tangent of the thread. Your religious beliefs are your business. I am not trying to disprove anything. It simply does not concern me. You don't reply/quote or use paragraphs so it's hard to read and not much of a discussion anyway.

Guns are not political. They kill indiscriminately, in this case children. So the politics vs religion argument makes no sense to me. In my view, we get rid of the tool of violence as much as possible. Practical solution.


[Edited 11/23/19 15:39pm]





guns do not kill people.... we can argue the issues such as guns make it easier or more effective... sure. But if cops and bad guys have guns then we should be allowed to have them too.


I can also see that the way a gun looks can lead them to be used is some kinds of crimes...but there is not any reason other than how they LOOK... pure cosmetic.

Of course many are less than honest when the say they only want "Assault weapons" banned.. but then list features that apply to many other guns. Others just do not know what they are talking about.




Of course guns kill people. What a stupid fucking statement.



Only gonna Only...
bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 11/24/19 7:15am

maplenpg

avatar

cborgman said:

maplenpg said:

Of course guns kill people. What a stupid fucking statement.

Only gonna Only...

He'll argue the semantics. I'll not rise to it. I'm getting closer to adding him to my ignore list.

The second and third wave of the Spanish flu were far worse than the first wave.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 11/24/19 7:33am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

cborgman said:

maplenpg said: Only gonna Only...

He'll argue the semantics. I'll not rise to it. I'm getting closer to adding him to my ignore list.

there's an ignore list? I know you cab block orgnotes...

but why do get so triggered that I do not agree with you?

and again guns do not kill people any more than a fork makes people fat or that a shot glass makes people drunk.

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 11/24/19 7:37am

poppys

poppys said:



wildgoldenhoney said:


poppy's.... That's all. TIP OF THE ICEBERG


Guns are not political. argument makes no sense to me.

wildgoldenhoney said:

The process of changing the laws can be political. Someone mentioned NRA paying off politicians. Tell me that's not politics. Politics are man made. Man made laws have many flaws and loopholes that people use as a fulcrum to swing things in their favor for their personal advantage. Beliefs aside, I don't trust politics and the people who make laws to get it right all the time. But that's cool, we don't have to continue this conversation.

This is getting very familiar old friend...

Now you are editing pieces of my post out. It is disingenuous to change someone's words in a discussion and pretend you are making a point about what they said. This is my actual post:

poppys said:

Guns are not political. They kill indiscriminately, in this case children. So the politics vs religion argument makes no sense to me. In my view, we get rid of the tool of violence as much as possible. Practical solution.


The definition of the word politics is my signature right now:

politics: the art or science of government.


You are applying the word politics as a catch all for everything you don't like in the world. The word government and the word politics and the word religion are all different words. All of them are neutral until they are applied to a specific situation. This thread is about mass shootings. bored

I was raised in a pacifist Christian sect who does not believe in bearing arms, and will go to jail instead of war if they have to. We were almost wiped out (by the Pope) in Europe before we fled here, aka religious violence. Non-violence can be political, just like violence, the word does not have a static meaning.

[Edited 11/24/19 13:13pm]

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 11/24/19 8:04am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:

poppys said:



Guns are not political. argument makes no sense to me.

wildgoldenhoney said:

The process of changing the laws can be political. Someone mentioned NRA paying off politicians. Tell me that's not politics. Politics are man made. Man made laws have many flaws and loopholes that people use as a fulcrum to swing things in their favor for their personal advantage. Beliefs aside, I don't trust politics and the people who make laws to get it right all the time. But that's cool, we don't have to continue this conversation.

This is getting very familiar...

Now you are editing pieces of my post out. It is disingenuous to change someone's words in a discussion and pretend you are making a point about what they said. This is my actual post:

poppys said:

Guns are not political. They kill indiscriminately, in this case children. So the politics vs religion argument makes no sense to me. In my view, we get rid of the tool of violence as much as possible. Practical solution.


The definition of the word politics is my signature right now:

politics: the art or science of government.


You are applying the word politics as a catch all for everything you don't like in the world. The word government and the word politics are 2 different words. Both of them are neutral until they are applied to a specific situation. This thread is about mass shootings. bored

I was raised in a pacifist Christian sect who does not believe in bearing arms, and will go to jail instead of war if they have to. We were almost wiped out (by the Pope) in Europe before we fled here. Non-violence can be political, just like violence, the word itself does not have a static meaning.

[Edited 11/24/19 7:54am]

again guns do not kill much less indiscriminately and more than hammers build dog houses...

and I am happy for you if being non violent works for you... as antagonistic as you come off it is interesting to know that you would simply cave in or flee if met with someone with ill intent. But I do assume you no longer follow that path as you seem willing to advocate for yourself.

Just out of curiosity: if you woke up at night and discovered someone had broken into your home what would you do?

but a word of caution: being non-violent or pacifistic often leads to being oppressed. As not everyone will share that philosophy and will take advantage...

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 11/24/19 8:08am

PennyPurple

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:


again guns do not kill much less indiscriminately and more than hammers build dog houses...

and I am happy for you if being non violent works for you... as antagonistic as you come off it is interesting to know that you would simply cave in or flee if met with someone with ill intent. But I do assume you no longer follow that path as you seem willing to advocate for yourself.

Just out of curiosity: if you woke up at night and discovered someone had broken into your home what would you do?

but a word of caution: being non-violent or pacifistic often leads to being oppressed. As not everyone will share that philosophy and will take advantage...

C'mon Only. You know we aren't talking about defending ourselves. We are talking about MASS shootings that occur here on a regular basis, usually in schools.

COME BACK RODEO COME BACK!

djThunderfunk said:
Not because of some silly milano on the org. lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 11/24/19 8:11am

poppys

PennyPurple said:

OnlyNDaUsa said

again guns do not kill much less indiscriminately and more than hammers build dog houses...

and I am happy for you if being non violent works for you... as antagonistic as you come off it is interesting to know that you would simply cave in or flee if met with someone with ill intent. But I do assume you no longer follow that path as you seem willing to advocate for yourself.

Just out of curiosity: if you woke up at night and discovered someone had broken into your home what would you do?

but a word of caution: being non-violent or pacifistic often leads to being oppressed. As not everyone will share that philosophy and will take advantage...



C'mon Only. You know we aren't talking about defending ourselves. We are talking about MASS shootings that occur here on a regular basis, usually in schools.


Exactly. What a dumbass reply. Always a ridiculous tangent.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 11/24/19 8:17am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:

PennyPurple said:



C'mon Only. You know we aren't talking about defending ourselves. We are talking about MASS shootings that occur here on a regular basis, usually in schools.


Exactly. What a dumbass reply. Always a ridiculous tangent.

you said your faith (well your family's historical faith) was one of non-violence. That they would go to prison as opposed to go to war. If you are willing to use violence for self defence then you are NOT truly a pacifist. There is a disconnect there.

and guns do not kill people...

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 13 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another School Shooting