I've got a little bad news for you concerning who owns the media ...
Thomas Jefferson and guns.
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
I've got a little bad news for you concerning who owns the media ...
You're not contributing a thing to the discussion.
Yeah, we've got guns. They did us no good. A gun in and of itself never solves anything.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
Yes but there any many media, an advantage is that they don't currently own the internet.
but the fight is for free (from corporate editorial ) press.
I have more faith in government than corporate press at the moment.
but the fight is for free (from corporate editorial ) press.
I have more faith in government than corporate press at the moment.
Little late to be worrying about that particular horse.
Who do you think elects our politicians?
Guns are the fabric of America
I took the same detour as you did...:chuckle:
Interesting you would say "never" because that is an awful long time. In taking some advanced gun training the trainer said almost the exact opposite, he said "if you are faced with a deadly threat and use your weapon to end the threat, the one problem that is solved in this situation is that you are alive and the attacker is not." He went on to explain from there how that decision would change your life forever opening up a whole new set of problems, and not always for the better, could be legally, emotionally, a person might have to change their name, move away from their home, etc. None of these outcomes are desirable but, the one thing is solved out of all this potential pain you will endure is that you are alive and your attacker is not...period, I wouldn't say never.
I am familiar with who he is but, have not read any of his stuff.
Actually it did solve something, it solved the threat, you/I are alive and the assailant is not, and being alive is certainly something. The problems that come with it are very real but, given the alternative, sometimes that is the only choice you have to make.
Maybe. But now a spoon? That's a whole other matter ...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114948
Or pressure cookers....Or....
PureX
Well-known member
Yep. It's a common tactic of fascists and despots to offer those they intend to subjugate a scapegoat to focus their anger on while the chains are being put on them. And sadly, it usually works. Because we'd rather hate the scapegoats than face the reality of our own subjugation. That's what Granite is trying to point out. The chains are already on us, and all this arming ourselves to the teeth business is doing is providing us with the foolish illusion that we're still free.
Worth a look if you have the time. Just finished Scaling Violence.
In virtually every instance, de-escalation is available and preferable. The classic home-invader scenario isn't as clear-cut as it appears, as an aside, though it seems to often be cited by people who seem oddly interested in playing it out.
True to a point, questionable in others, though I question what's really going on in the minds of people who use this case, or its distant cousin--the classic terrorist ticking time bomb--to justify what would otherwise be considered the unthinkable. Kind of makes me think of people who seem eager to defend the N-word and have devoted more time than healthy to the subject.
This makes me think of the boys getting to Pleasure Island for the first time, getting handed stogies on arrival: Smoke your hearts out!
GUNS! More guns! Let the fools have their guns.
Any chains on us now are mental.
Guns bought us this country. If we give them up we will loose it. Why do you think those that would enslave us want them so bad?
One word.
Mexico
This is not something Jefferson wrote, but rather comes from a passage he included in his "Legal Commonplace Book." The passage is from Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments.
-- https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation
In the 18th century, before people tweeted everything, "people had notebooks where they wrote down anything they thought was important," explains Cornell. Jefferson was just quoting Beccaria.
Jefferson agreed that keeping guns out of people's hands only helped the bad guys, according to Cornell in his book "A Well-Regulated Militia."
But the phrase takes on different meaning when translated from the Italian, according to an article by Washington University law professor David Thomas Konig. Jefferson wasn't questioning the constitutionality of anti-carrying laws; he said they were impractical to uphold.
Jefferson agreed that keeping guns out of people's hands only helped the bad guys, according to Cornell in his book "A Well-Regulated Militia."
But the phrase takes on different meaning when translated from the Italian, according to an article by Washington University law professor David Thomas Konig. Jefferson wasn't questioning the constitutionality of anti-carrying laws; he said they were impractical to uphold.
-- http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/07/us/jefferson-rorschach-guns/
Two more, oddballs and goofballs.
No one. Is. Coming. For. Our. Guns. They don't want or need them. It serves better practical purposes to keep us stocked up. Americans are never going to get disarmed, and anyone who suggests this asinine notion is deluded, dense, naive, stupid, lying, or a combination of the above.
Two thoughts:
1) It is possible to respond to a notion without invective.
2) Allowing for the possibility that someone else has a point is not an actionable offense.
I agree, and I would say that more often the attacker lives too. The presence of a gun can stop an attacker in his tracks without a shot. In cases where they are shot, they might still live.
el chapo