(03-21-2018, 04:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 02:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2018, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018, 12:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2018, 02:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]It only takes one or two accurate shots to kill or severely injure a shooter like Mateen. Your view represents the view of a person who has never shot a gun, who has never hit a target with a round, who most likely has never handled a gun, who is not very familiar with them, who does not feel comfortable with them, who is most likely afraid of guns and afraid of people who have/own guns and so forth. You seem like you'd be more interested in saving yourself than saving others if you were placed in a similar situation based on the post.
Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
The point I was making is simple. Responding to a life-threatening asymmetrical threat the first time is an unknown for everyone. 99% of all such threats are first time events, so the only alternative to winging it is training. Now training to overcome the adrenaline rush while responding, and an active shooter response requires both precision and speed, is exactly the training that the military offers: long term and relentless. Law enforcement tends to grab the already trained ex-military types for SWAT for that very reason.
So no; I don't know how you would react. Neither do you. FWIW, the same applies to me.
The point that I've been making is the shooter wasn't/most likely isn't a highly trained professional (upper 1%) either. The shooter, like most unprofessional shooters, would most likely be in the same percentage (the so-called 99%) as us (you and me) and would be susceptible to pain, fear, surprise and so on just like everyone else who hasn't been involved in a shootout with others or a situation where someone is shooting at them.
One difference is that, unlike you, the shooter has no desire to continue living, and thus, no fear.
(03-21-2018, 02:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2018, 11:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2018, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018, 12:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2018, 02:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]It only takes one or two accurate shots to kill or severely injure a shooter like Mateen. Your view represents the view of a person who has never shot a gun, who has never hit a target with a round, who most likely has never handled a gun, who is not very familiar with them, who does not feel comfortable with them, who is most likely afraid of guns and afraid of people who have/own guns and so forth. You seem like you'd be more interested in saving yourself than saving others if you were placed in a similar situation based on the post.
Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
That's a good reason for gun control right there. People like you don't think twice about shooting "in defense." It may only turn out to be a burglar, or a neighbor knocking on your door. And the cops just shot another unarmed black man suspected of breaking windows, but they shot him in his own back yard just because he held up a cell phone. In defense, the cops said. And the cops will get away with this murder, because the guy is black and because they are cops.
There's a difference (a different sound/a different feel) between a neighbor knocking on your door and a criminal breaking into to your home or a dangerous person forcing they're way into your home. Yes, a burglar/dangerous person could end up shot/wounded or end up dead from a gun shot. That's a risk that burglars/criminals/dangerous people take these days. Once again, the blues seem more concerned about the lives of burglars/criminals than the lives of lawful citizens. I've always had an issue with Progressive/blue/green values because of the positions they take on issues involving American values. What do we (the Americans) do with/do about the Progressive/blue/green? Do we wait for/trust the Democrats to take care (get rid of them) of them for us or do we (The Americans) begin the process of getting rid of them ourselves?
The points being, that it has in fact often happened that a gun owner HAS shot a neighbor or other non-dangerous person by mistake. And second, a burglar does not threaten your life, only your property, while you would be executing him without trial. And third, of course, as has been made clear, it is OUR side that upholds American values, NOT yours.
(03-21-2018, 08:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 02:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]There's a difference (a different sound/a different feel) between a neighbor knocking on your door and a criminal breaking into to your home or a dangerous person forcing they're way into your home. Yes, a burglar/dangerous person could end up shot/wounded or end up dead from a gun shot. That's a risk that burglars/criminals/dangerous people take these days. Once again, the blues seem more concerned about the lives of burglars/criminals than the lives of lawful citizens. I've always had an issue with Progressive/blue/green values because of the positions they take on issues involving American values. What do we (the Americans) do with/do about the Progressive/blue/green? Do we wait for/trust the Democrats to take care (get rid of them) of them for us or do we (The Americans) begin the process of getting rid of them ourselves?
The points being, that it has in fact often happened that a gun owner HAS shot a neighbor or other non-dangerous person by mistake. And second, a burglar does not threaten your life, only your property, while you would be executing him without trial. And third, of course, as has been made clear, it is OUR side that upholds American values, NOT yours.
I don't like the recent red label of using 'American' to identify their own beliefs. I mean, I can disagree and agree with Eric, but he is no less or more American than Classic. I prefer the conservative or progressive labels. Especially on firearm policy, Classic will profess older values, Eric newer. This does not mean the values are more or less American, particularly.
Liberals will bind together to form strong communities. Conservatives will be ruggedly independent. Is it American to embrace one trend or the other? I think not. In the old days loners would sit on their own land and do their thing, but some of our great and memorable achievements required teamwork. I wouldn't care to say D-Day or the Moon Shot were not American.
(03-21-2018, 08:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The points being, that it has in fact often happened that a gun owner HAS shot a neighbor or other non-dangerous person by mistake. And second, a burglar does not threaten your life, only your property, while you would be executing him without trial. And third, of course, as has been made clear, it is OUR side that upholds American values, NOT yours.
Mistakes happen. Point taken and accepted as a known danger associated with gun ownership. However, I also accept mistakes happen with automobiles and accept it as a danger associated with automobile owners. Why are accidents and suicides related to guns lumped in with the gun deaths related to gun violence? I keep hearing liberals using vague statistics associated with gun deaths as if they're all related to gun violence when they're not. How do you know a burglar isn't going to threaten my life or the life of someone else? How do you know which burglar is dangerous and which one is not? Me, I wouldn't claim to know their full intent. I wouldn't take the time to ask them and I wouldn't assume that they're only interested in property or assume that they're going to be decent either.
(03-21-2018, 10:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like the recent red label of using 'American' to identify their own beliefs. I mean, I can disagree and agree with Eric, but he is no less or more American than Classic. I prefer the conservative or progressive labels. Especially on firearm policy, Classic will profess older values, Eric newer. This does not mean the values are more or less American, particularly.
Liberals will bind together to form strong communities. Conservatives will be ruggedly independent. Is it American to embrace one trend or the other? I think not. In the old days loners would sit on their own land and do their thing, but some of our great and memorable achievements required teamwork. I wouldn't care to say D-Day or the Moon Shot were not American.
Bob, we have liberal communities and conservative communities within America. As general rule, a conservative community is smaller more closely bonded and tighter knit than the liberal community because the liberal community is larger and has more people coming and going than the conservative community which is why liberals have to preach what the conservatives practice on a regular basis.
As far as Eric and I go, we don't see eye to eye on any issue that involves America or its future. I do not view Eric as being much of an America. I do not view Eric as being much of a team player as far as America goes either. I've never viewed blues as being much as far as team players either. As long as blues remain the same blues, I don't see any possibility of bridging the divide that exists between blue and red America.
Other than a few great golf shots or a few great tennis matches and Olympic records in individual sports, I can't think of a major achievement or accomplishment that didn't involve a massive amount of team work.
Golfers have coaches and advisers. Were I a professional golfer I would have a diet coach just so that I could avoid putting on weight that compromises balance. Olympic athletes have a team behind them for financing the activities and a horde of coaches, travel planners, etc.
A politician is the point of the sword of his ideology. Lots of people have spear points, but if there is nothing behind the spear point, then the spear point can;t even have a trajectory.
(03-22-2018, 02:11 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 10:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like the recent red label of using 'American' to identify their own beliefs. I mean, I can disagree and agree with Eric, but he is no less or more American than Classic. I prefer the conservative or progressive labels. Especially on firearm policy, Classic will profess older values, Eric newer. This does not mean the values are more or less American, particularly.
Liberals will bind together to form strong communities. Conservatives will be ruggedly independent. Is it American to embrace one trend or the other? I think not. In the old days loners would sit on their own land and do their thing, but some of our great and memorable achievements required teamwork. I wouldn't care to say D-Day or the Moon Shot were not American.
Bob, we have liberal communities and conservative communities within America. As general rule, a conservative community is smaller more closely bonded and tighter knit than the liberal community because the liberal community is larger and has more people coming and going than the conservative community which is why liberals have to preach what the conservatives practice on a regular basis.
As far as Eric and I go, we don't see eye to eye on any issue that involves America or its future. I do not view Eric as being much of an America. I do not view Eric as being much of a team player as far as America goes either. I've never viewed blues as being much as far as team players either. As long as blues remain the same blues, I don't see any possibility of bridging the divide that exists between blue and red America.
Other than a few great golf shots or a few great tennis matches and Olympic records in individual sports, I can't think of a major achievement or accomplishment that didn't involve a massive amount of team work.
I am coming to equate liberal with the health care difference and the idea that the community can and should help out the unlucky. I see Ben Franklin's ideal of the postal service and paving the streets as pushing the idea early. The government is just a good way for the many to bind together and provide a necessary service. This is not a flash in the pan recent idea. Conservatives would resist government growth, with respectable reason, but health care in particular has become too expensive for many. I would as soon that particular absolute need be under the government umbrella, as many needs.
Some Conservatives are bigots, would as soon deny specific individuals service, and have money enough to think they and thus all should pay their own way and let those who cannot suffer. One result is Nixon's and the Republican's Southern Strategy. Not all Republicans think this way, but some do. I don't think that way is particularly American.
There are lots of ways people think in America. One is that people should help each other and have a government that helps the People. That idea taken to any extreme is called liberal. If so, I am a liberal American.
(03-22-2018, 09:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2018, 02:11 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 10:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like the recent red label of using 'American' to identify their own beliefs. I mean, I can disagree and agree with Eric, but he is no less or more American than Classic. I prefer the conservative or progressive labels. Especially on firearm policy, Classic will profess older values, Eric newer. This does not mean the values are more or less American, particularly.
Liberals will bind together to form strong communities. Conservatives will be ruggedly independent. Is it American to embrace one trend or the other? I think not. In the old days loners would sit on their own land and do their thing, but some of our great and memorable achievements required teamwork. I wouldn't care to say D-Day or the Moon Shot were not American.
Bob, we have liberal communities and conservative communities within America. As general rule, a conservative community is smaller more closely bonded and tighter knit than the liberal community because the liberal community is larger and has more people coming and going than the conservative community which is why liberals have to preach what the conservatives practice on a regular basis.
As far as Eric and I go, we don't see eye to eye on any issue that involves America or its future. I do not view Eric as being much of an America. I do not view Eric as being much of a team player as far as America goes either. I've never viewed blues as being much as far as team players either. As long as blues remain the same blues, I don't see any possibility of bridging the divide that exists between blue and red America.
Other than a few great golf shots or a few great tennis matches and Olympic records in individual sports, I can't think of a major achievement or accomplishment that didn't involve a massive amount of team work.
I am coming to equate liberal with the health care difference and the idea that the community can and should help out the unlucky. I see Ben Franklin's ideal of the postal service and paving the streets as pushing the idea early. The government is just a good way for the many to bind together and provide a necessary service. This is not a flash in the pan recent idea. Conservatives would resist government growth, with respectable reason, but health care in particular has become too expensive for many. I would as soon that particular absolute need be under the government umbrella, as many needs.
Some Conservatives are bigots, would as soon deny specific individuals service, and have money enough to think they and thus all should pay their own way and let those who cannot suffer. One result is Nixon's and the Republican's Southern Strategy. Not all Republicans think this way, but some do. I don't think that way is particularly American.
There are lots of ways people think in America. One is that people should help each other and have a government that helps the People. That idea taken to any extreme is called liberal. If so, I am a liberal American.
I'm OK with the idea of community pitching in and helping out the less fortunate. However, I have a problem with so-called liberals making a moral/financial decision like that (can or cannot, willing or not) for me and legally obligating me to it forever with tax laws. I also have a problem with so-called liberals who get pissed, who call people bad names, who associate people with bad terms, associate people with a communist/bad color (Red) because they have the audacity to question/challenge the integrity, the motives, the judgement, the decisions, the legal or moral authority, the knowledge, the obvious conflicts of interest, the corruption and so forth of the so-called liberals/Progressives and the party that they're associated with and pretty much been controlling for years.
As far as health care, my healthcare cost is 3-4 times higher than they were before Obama was elected. The affordable healthcare plan that I had before him was eliminated and replaced with a plan that costed twice as much with a deductible that was higher as well. You see, I'm not as fortunate as the less fortunate who are getting premium healthcare for free. BTW, I'm not as fortunate as the less fortunate refugee's who are receiving their healthcare for free either. You claim that you don't believe in freebies. Can you do anything about them, can you stop them without Republicans and Libertarians?
(03-22-2018, 06:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2018, 09:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2018, 02:11 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 10:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like the recent red label of using 'American' to identify their own beliefs. I mean, I can disagree and agree with Eric, but he is no less or more American than Classic. I prefer the conservative or progressive labels. Especially on firearm policy, Classic will profess older values, Eric newer. This does not mean the values are more or less American, particularly.
Liberals will bind together to form strong communities. Conservatives will be ruggedly independent. Is it American to embrace one trend or the other? I think not. In the old days loners would sit on their own land and do their thing, but some of our great and memorable achievements required teamwork. I wouldn't care to say D-Day or the Moon Shot were not American.
Bob, we have liberal communities and conservative communities within America. As general rule, a conservative community is smaller more closely bonded and tighter knit than the liberal community because the liberal community is larger and has more people coming and going than the conservative community which is why liberals have to preach what the conservatives practice on a regular basis.
As far as Eric and I go, we don't see eye to eye on any issue that involves America or its future. I do not view Eric as being much of an America. I do not view Eric as being much of a team player as far as America goes either. I've never viewed blues as being much as far as team players either. As long as blues remain the same blues, I don't see any possibility of bridging the divide that exists between blue and red America.
Other than a few great golf shots or a few great tennis matches and Olympic records in individual sports, I can't think of a major achievement or accomplishment that didn't involve a massive amount of team work.
I am coming to equate liberal with the health care difference and the idea that the community can and should help out the unlucky. I see Ben Franklin's ideal of the postal service and paving the streets as pushing the idea early. The government is just a good way for the many to bind together and provide a necessary service. This is not a flash in the pan recent idea. Conservatives would resist government growth, with respectable reason, but health care in particular has become too expensive for many. I would as soon that particular absolute need be under the government umbrella, as many needs.
Some Conservatives are bigots, would as soon deny specific individuals service, and have money enough to think they and thus all should pay their own way and let those who cannot suffer. One result is Nixon's and the Republican's Southern Strategy. Not all Republicans think this way, but some do. I don't think that way is particularly American.
There are lots of ways people think in America. One is that people should help each other and have a government that helps the People. That idea taken to any extreme is called liberal. If so, I am a liberal American.
I'm OK with the idea of community pitching in and helping out the less fortunate. However, I have a problem with so-called liberals making a moral/financial decision like that (can or cannot, willing or not) for me and legally obligating me to it forever with tax laws. I also have a problem with so-called liberals who get pissed, who call people bad names, who associate people with bad terms, associate people with a communist/bad color (Red) because they have the audacity to question/challenge the integrity, the motives, the judgement, the decisions, the legal or moral authority, the knowledge, the obvious conflicts of interest, the corruption and so forth of the so-called liberals/Progressives and the party that they're associated with and pretty much been controlling for years.
As far as health care, my healthcare cost is 3-4 times higher than they were before Obama was elected. The affordable healthcare plan that I had before him was eliminated and replaced with a plan that costed twice as much with a deductible that was higher as well. You see, I'm not as fortunate as the less fortunate who are getting premium healthcare for free. BTW, I'm not as fortunate as the less fortunate refugee's who are receiving their healthcare for free either. You claim that you don't believe in freebies. Can you do anything about them, can you stop them without Republicans and Libertarians?
We have a welfare system because the alternative is horrible. We do not want to see people starving or begging on the street. We prefer that people not shoplift just to survive. Sure, it would be possible to eliminate poverty by eliminating the 'dregs' of society, but that would constitute the most hideous of crimes, that is genocide. (The use of the word has been expanded to include murders based upon social class, as in Communist states).
Many people are out of the workforce because of workplace injuries and catastrophic harm to them as military casualties; consigning such people to death by hunger would be unspeakably cruel. People with misfortunes might be out of the workforce due to some treatable ailment.
Medical costs have inflated faster than general costs largely because the medical system fosters monopolies. Obamacare has failed to the extent that it has failed to address the monopolistic conditions in the medical business. I ask you -- how do we deal with that? The politicians in the pay of the monopolists have been successful so far in thwarting any reform of that aspect of the system. As someone who may need disability to survive -- and, yes, I have a work ethic and would prefer work appropriate for my abilities with pay commensurate with my abilities -- I must accept the need of a welfare system.
(03-21-2018, 08:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 04:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 02:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2018, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2018, 12:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
The point I was making is simple. Responding to a life-threatening asymmetrical threat the first time is an unknown for everyone. 99% of all such threats are first time events, so the only alternative to winging it is training. Now training to overcome the adrenaline rush while responding, and an active shooter response requires both precision and speed, is exactly the training that the military offers: long term and relentless. Law enforcement tends to grab the already trained ex-military types for SWAT for that very reason.
So no; I don't know how you would react. Neither do you. FWIW, the same applies to me.
The point that I've been making is the shooter wasn't/most likely isn't a highly trained professional (upper 1%) either. The shooter, like most unprofessional shooters, would most likely be in the same percentage (the so-called 99%) as us (you and me) and would be susceptible to pain, fear, surprise and so on just like everyone else who hasn't been involved in a shootout with others or a situation where someone is shooting at them.
One difference is that, unlike you, the shooter has no desire to continue living, and thus, no fear.
Hmm... You don't think the fear of being caught alive and facing the consequences for their actions played a major role in their decision to kill themselves. I think so.
(03-21-2018, 04:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 02:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]The point I was making is simple. Responding to a life-threatening asymmetrical threat the first time is an unknown for everyone. 99% of all such threats are first time events, so the only alternative to winging it is training. Now training to overcome the adrenaline rush while responding, and an active shooter response requires both precision and speed, is exactly the training that the military offers: long term and relentless. Law enforcement tends to grab the already trained ex-military types for SWAT for that very reason.
So no; I don't know how you would react. Neither do you. FWIW, the same applies to me.
The point that I've been making is the shooter wasn't/most likely isn't a highly trained professional (upper 1%) either. The shooter, like most unprofessional shooters, would most likely be in the same percentage (the so-called 99%) as us (you and me) and would be susceptible to pain, fear, surprise and so on just like everyone else who hasn't been involved in a shootout with others or a situation where someone is shooting at them.
The shooter may very well be suicidal and simply doesn't care if he (almost always a 'he') survives. In any case, he has had the time to psyche himself up for the task, and, nominally, is in charge of the event. Responders have no time to do anything but react or to prepare mentally. That's part of the asymmetry.
(03-23-2018, 12:19 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 08:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 04:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 02:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2018, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
The point I was making is simple. Responding to a life-threatening asymmetrical threat the first time is an unknown for everyone. 99% of all such threats are first time events, so the only alternative to winging it is training. Now training to overcome the adrenaline rush while responding, and an active shooter response requires both precision and speed, is exactly the training that the military offers: long term and relentless. Law enforcement tends to grab the already trained ex-military types for SWAT for that very reason.
So no; I don't know how you would react. Neither do you. FWIW, the same applies to me.
The point that I've been making is the shooter wasn't/most likely isn't a highly trained professional (upper 1%) either. The shooter, like most unprofessional shooters, would most likely be in the same percentage (the so-called 99%) as us (you and me) and would be susceptible to pain, fear, surprise and so on just like everyone else who hasn't been involved in a shootout with others or a situation where someone is shooting at them.
One difference is that, unlike you, the shooter has no desire to continue living, and thus, no fear.
Hmm... You don't think the fear of being caught alive and facing the consequences for their actions played a major role in their decision to kill themselves. I think so.
You don't think they knew going in that they would face the consequences of their actions. I think so.
These shooters just want to commit suicide and take others with them.
(03-22-2018, 06:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2018, 09:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-22-2018, 02:11 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 10:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like the recent red label of using 'American' to identify their own beliefs. I mean, I can disagree and agree with Eric, but he is no less or more American than Classic. I prefer the conservative or progressive labels. Especially on firearm policy, Classic will profess older values, Eric newer. This does not mean the values are more or less American, particularly.
Liberals will bind together to form strong communities. Conservatives will be ruggedly independent. Is it American to embrace one trend or the other? I think not. In the old days loners would sit on their own land and do their thing, but some of our great and memorable achievements required teamwork. I wouldn't care to say D-Day or the Moon Shot were not American.
Bob, we have liberal communities and conservative communities within America. As general rule, a conservative community is smaller more closely bonded and tighter knit than the liberal community because the liberal community is larger and has more people coming and going than the conservative community which is why liberals have to preach what the conservatives practice on a regular basis.
As far as Eric and I go, we don't see eye to eye on any issue that involves America or its future. I do not view Eric as being much of an America. I do not view Eric as being much of a team player as far as America goes either. I've never viewed blues as being much as far as team players either. As long as blues remain the same blues, I don't see any possibility of bridging the divide that exists between blue and red America.
Other than a few great golf shots or a few great tennis matches and Olympic records in individual sports, I can't think of a major achievement or accomplishment that didn't involve a massive amount of team work.
I am coming to equate liberal with the health care difference and the idea that the community can and should help out the unlucky. I see Ben Franklin's ideal of the postal service and paving the streets as pushing the idea early. The government is just a good way for the many to bind together and provide a necessary service. This is not a flash in the pan recent idea. Conservatives would resist government growth, with respectable reason, but health care in particular has become too expensive for many. I would as soon that particular absolute need be under the government umbrella, as many needs.
Some Conservatives are bigots, would as soon deny specific individuals service, and have money enough to think they and thus all should pay their own way and let those who cannot suffer. One result is Nixon's and the Republican's Southern Strategy. Not all Republicans think this way, but some do. I don't think that way is particularly American.
There are lots of ways people think in America. One is that people should help each other and have a government that helps the People. That idea taken to any extreme is called liberal. If so, I am a liberal American.
I'm OK with the idea of community pitching in and helping out the less fortunate. However, I have a problem with so-called liberals making a moral/financial decision like that (can or cannot, willing or not) for me and legally obligating me to it forever with tax laws. I also have a problem with so-called liberals who get pissed, who call people bad names, who associate people with bad terms, associate people with a communist/bad color (Red) because they have the audacity to question/challenge the integrity, the motives, the judgement, the decisions, the legal or moral authority, the knowledge, the obvious conflicts of interest, the corruption and so forth of the so-called liberals/Progressives and the party that they're associated with and pretty much been controlling for years.
As far as health care, my healthcare cost is 3-4 times higher than they were before Obama was elected. The affordable healthcare plan that I had before him was eliminated and replaced with a plan that costed twice as much with a deductible that was higher as well. You see, I'm not as fortunate as the less fortunate who are getting premium healthcare for free. BTW, I'm not as fortunate as the less fortunate refugee's who are receiving their healthcare for free either. You claim that you don't believe in freebies. Can you do anything about them, can you stop them without Republicans and Libertarians?
Come now, you know that I have recognized in my posts that red used to be the color of communism. I go back a ways.
I developed an election board game in 1980. Back then, blue was commonly used for Republicans and red for Democrats on network TV maps. I thought that was appropriate because after all, Democrats were kinda pinko. So I used those colors for my game pieces. Brower as you know posts maps that still have those colors.
But by the year 2000, as the Bush v Gore standoff occurred, it had become established during network TV coverage of presidential elections, that red was used on the big USA map for states won by Republicans, and blue for Democrats. That's
only where the red and blue meanings come from, and not from liberals who want to call Republicans commies. Blue is also a commonly-used color for labor unions, which usually align with Democrats. So there was some justification for the blue = Democrats on that basis, even though labor is also somewhat related to red socialism. Red could be kinda appropriate too for Republicans now, since nowadays most staunch Republicans are rural "rednecks."
It's just symbolism. You have a hard time separating symbols from reality. Desecrating the flag is a sin, and "American" means old-fashioned white Christian values. So be it.
If you don't like your posts being called racist, then don't make racist posts.
Most people did better under Obamacare. I hear you that you are worse off. The real solution is single payer, but Republicans and Libertarians won't hear of it. Yes, it does take taxes to truly help the less fortunate. Voluntary methods don't work and never have. Taxes used to help the less fortunate go back thousands of years. It is your party that is the radical one that is trying to send us back to the 18th century.
(03-22-2018, 02:11 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 10:46 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like the recent red label of using 'American' to identify their own beliefs. I mean, I can disagree and agree with Eric, but he is no less or more American than Classic. I prefer the conservative or progressive labels. Especially on firearm policy, Classic will profess older values, Eric newer. This does not mean the values are more or less American, particularly.
Liberals will bind together to form strong communities. Conservatives will be ruggedly independent. Is it American to embrace one trend or the other? I think not. In the old days loners would sit on their own land and do their thing, but some of our great and memorable achievements required teamwork. I wouldn't care to say D-Day or the Moon Shot were not American.
Bob, we have liberal communities and conservative communities within America. As general rule, a conservative community is smaller more closely bonded and tighter knit than the liberal community because the liberal community is larger and has more people coming and going than the conservative community which is why liberals have to preach what the conservatives practice on a regular basis.
As far as Eric and I go, we don't see eye to eye on any issue that involves America or its future. I do not view Eric as being much of an America. I do not view Eric as being much of a team player as far as America goes either. I've never viewed blues as being much as far as team players either. As long as blues remain the same blues, I don't see any possibility of bridging the divide that exists between blue and red America.
Other than a few great golf shots or a few great tennis matches and Olympic records in individual sports, I can't think of a major achievement or accomplishment that didn't involve a massive amount of team work.
Reds and Blues can both be team players within a community. That's what Obama emphasized in his famous speech to the 2004 convention. But blues are more urban and reds more rural, and rural communities are more stable. Rural communities often think they can take care of themselves and don't need the government. That might often be true, but they still call on government for agricultural subsidies, flood control, and disaster relief. And the disasters are getting ever worse because of the climate change that reds have voted for.
Being a team player for blues means accepting that we need the government and the people need to do things as a team, meaning through contributing to the government as well as charity, because only the government can truly meet the needs of the people. These include education, infrastructure, research, conservation, law enforcement as well as social programs. Privatizing everything would take us back to the feudal middle ages, and slow commerce and trade to a crawl. Imagine toll roads and rivers everywhere, brigands everywhere, people impoverished all the time. That's the end result of libertarian economics and politics.
So blues want you to pay taxes. Most blues prefer a reasonable, progressive tax system that does not place too heavy a burden on the middle class, and requires the wealthy, who benefit massively from government, to pay their share-- especially more in the near future, since they have been getting massive tax breaks for the last 40 years.
Meanwhile, reds want to take your money and use it to build armaments and use these to start wars for oil and imperial dreams, and to take American boys too and get them killed and maimed in these unnecessary wars. Neo-liberal congressmen you vote for like Paul Ryan apparently see nothing wrong with this policy, nor with the enormous national debt which this policy and their tax cuts cause. I do.
Gun regulations and bans on military weapons still keep the 2nd amendment intact. It may not be my green ideal, but it does help reduce gun violence. Fanatics who insist on keeping these military weapons are the ones taking us into a reactionary era that has never existed before, with guns that never existed before; along with your desire to get rid of taxes and business regulations and government investments. This libertarian fantasy has never been America.
(03-21-2018, 11:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 08:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The points being, that it has in fact often happened that a gun owner HAS shot a neighbor or other non-dangerous person by mistake. And second, a burglar does not threaten your life, only your property, while you would be executing him without trial. And third, of course, as has been made clear, it is OUR side that upholds American values, NOT yours.
Mistakes happen. Point taken and accepted as a known danger associated with gun ownership.
Thanks for taking my point. Dialogue happens sometimes
Quote: However, I also accept mistakes happen with automobiles and accept it as a danger associated with automobile owners. Why are accidents and suicides related to guns lumped in with the gun deaths related to gun violence? I keep hearing liberals using vague statistics associated with gun deaths as if they're all related to gun violence when they're not. How do you know a burglar isn't going to threaten my life or the life of someone else? How do you know which burglar is dangerous and which one is not? Me, I wouldn't claim to know their full intent. I wouldn't take the time to ask them and I wouldn't assume that they're only interested in property or assume that they're going to be decent either.
The difference between guns and automobiles is clear. There are accidents that happen with all tools, just about. The purpose of a car is to get from one place to another. Accidents are incidental. The purpose of a gun is to kill someone. Fatal "accidents" are the result of using a gun every time (excepting practice, of course; but what are you practicing for?).
A burglar doesn't threaten your life per se, only your property. If the burglar is also a murderer, (s)he will be armed with something. Killing a burglar is taking the law into your hands instead of taking them to Court. It is illegal. If they threaten your life, or you have good cause to think that they do, then you have cause to use your gun. However, our point is that using the gun is dangerous and often useless. Having a gun is unsafe unless it is unloaded and locked up. Otherwise, kids or robbers can take it and use it, or murders can happen in fits of passion, mistakes, etc. But a locked and unloaded gun probably can't be used for self-defense in time. Other methods work better against burglars who are not armed, at least.
Your gun may work, but the result is a shootout in which you are at least as much at risk as the burglar. So, it's better to use other methods of defense even against robbers armed with guns. There are many other methods of defense, as I have pointed out. But since rural people think that calling the police is not an option, and wild animals threaten their farm animals, they still want to have their guns. Compromise on this is better for the time being. But that does not mean a farmer or rancher needs an AR-15 or some other semi-automatic with a large magazine.
Really, the only reason gun violence is higher in rural red states is because of so many guns around, and liberal carry laws. Otherwise, they have less crime than urban states. In 2nd-amendment America, the most-violent developed country in the world, and the country with by far the most guns per capita, the difference between red and blue states is clear. The facts are clear. More murders, suicides and gun violence happens in states and countries with permissive guns laws, than in states and countries with gun laws and bans.
(03-23-2018, 01:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]You don't think they knew going in that they would face the consequences of their actions. I think so.
These shooters just want to commit suicide and take others with them.
Yes, I think they knew it going in and they were afraid being caught alive and they planned on committing suicide to prevent (spare themselves from the fear and the misery of answering) it from happening to them. Charles Manson was a living reminder of what an evil person sounds/looks/acts like and a living reminder of an evil presence within our society.
(03-21-2018, 11:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2018, 08:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The points being, that it has in fact often happened that a gun owner HAS shot a neighbor or other non-dangerous person by mistake. And second, a burglar does not threaten your life, only your property, while you would be executing him without trial. And third, of course, as has been made clear, it is OUR side that upholds American values, NOT yours.
Mistakes happen. Point taken and accepted as a known danger associated with gun ownership. However, I also accept mistakes happen with automobiles and accept it as a danger associated with automobile owners.
Mistakes with automobiles that don't involve a human as the object of collision often result in property destruction and not in lethal or crippling injuries. OK, I may be neglecting car-deer accidents common where I live, and one that I barely avoided this morning. Few people intend to do harm with a motor vehicle. Paradoxically the automobile may be the best friend of a beaten spouse.
Quote:Why are accidents and suicides related to guns lumped in with the gun deaths related to gun violence? I keep hearing liberals using vague statistics associated with gun deaths as if they're all related to gun violence when they're not.
I do not know whether suicide by firearm is any less violent than some other means or any more objectionable. But suicide by firearm is usually swifter.
Quote:How do you know a burglar isn't going to threaten my life or the life of someone else? How do you know which burglar is dangerous and which one is not? Me, I wouldn't claim to know their full intent.
You don't want to encounter a burglar. Burglars are often rapists as well as thieves. Advice that I saw on home-invasion burglaries was to treat them as fires -- just get out of the situation because those burglaries are similarly dangerous. But this said, most burglars are cowards, and little so deters a burglar as four horrid canine fangs -- let alone multiple sets of four horrid canine fangs -- with great bite force behind them.
Quote:I wouldn't take the time to ask them and I wouldn't assume that they're only interested in property or assume that they're going to be decent either.
The only appropriate deal involving a burglar is a plea bargain.
(03-23-2018, 06:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2018, 01:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]You don't think they knew going in that they would face the consequences of their actions. I think so.
These shooters just want to commit suicide and take others with them.
Yes, I think they knew it going in and they were afraid being caught alive and they planned on committing suicide to prevent (spare themselves from the fear and the misery of answering) it from happening to them. Charles Manson was a living reminder of what an evil person sounds/looks/acts like and a living reminder of an evil presence within our society.
Charles Manson's image is one of evil for the same reason that the images of Ted Bundy and Adolf Hitler are images of evil; they were unique enough in appearance that their monstrous deeds could easily be attributed to every aspect of their monstrous personalities. Their personal images are the least objectionable attributes -- something like "Goldstein" in
Nineteen Eighty-Four, except that the existence of "Goldstein" is legendary.
(03-23-2018, 02:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The difference between guns and automobiles is clear. There are accidents that happen with all tools, just about. The purpose of a car is to get from one place to another. Accidents are incidental. The purpose of a gun is to kill someone. Fatal "accidents" are the result of using a gun every time (excepting practice, of course; but what are you practicing for?).
A burglar doesn't threaten your life per se, only your property. If the burglar is also a murderer, (s)he will be armed with something. Killing a burglar is taking the law into your hands instead of taking them to Court. It is illegal. If they threaten your life, or you have good cause to think that they do, then you have cause to use your gun. However, our point is that using the gun is dangerous and often useless. Having a gun is unsafe unless it is unloaded and locked up. Otherwise, kids or robbers can take it and use it, or murders can happen in fits of passion, mistakes, etc. But a locked and unloaded gun probably can't be used for self-defense in time. Other methods work better against burglars who are not armed, at least.
Your gun may work, but the result is a shootout in which you are at least as much at risk as the burglar. So, it's better to use other methods of defense even against robbers armed with guns. There are many other methods of defense, as I have pointed out. But since rural people think that calling the police is not an option, and wild animals threaten their farm animals, they still want to have their guns. Compromise on this is better for the time being. But that does not mean a farmer or rancher needs an AR-15 or some other semi-automatic with a large magazine.
Really, the only reason gun violence is higher in rural red states is because of so many guns around, and liberal carry laws. Otherwise, they have less crime than urban states. In 2nd-amendment America, the most-violent developed country in the world, and the country with by far the most guns per capita, the difference between red and blue states is clear. The facts are clear. More murders, suicides and gun violence happens in states and countries with permissive guns laws, than in states and countries with gun laws and bans.
As I've told you before, my guns were not purchased with the sole intent or for the sole purpose of using them to murder people or rob people or threaten ordinary decent people into doing things/accepting things/believing things they ordinarily wouldn't do, would not accept, would not believe or think of doing own their own.
Minnesota is largely related to gun country. Minnesota has liberal gun laws and liberal conceal and carry laws. Minnesota is blue state on the political map. Minnesota is run by Democratic blue dogs and right-libertarians. Right libertarians doesn't have an issue with conservative Christian people or Christian beliefs. Right libertarian doesn't have an issue with legal gun owners/gun ownership or the idea of having legal gun owners within society or issues with the 2nd Amendment.
(03-23-2018, 06:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The only appropriate deal involving a burglar is a plea bargain.
That's funny!!!! What would you offer to give him/them to keep him/them from taking it/whatever they want away from you? A silly police threat or silly religious threat or moral opinion aren't much of a threat or bargaining chip to use with a criminal.