Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

venom

The Bottom Line Over the Gun Issue

31 posts in this topic

Ok, so please excuse me while I set the record straight here over the gun control issue.

It's very easy, and it goes a little bit like this...as long as guns exist, they must be available to everyone, period. And when I say everyone, no, I don't mean lunatic criminals. The absolute worst case scenario we could find ourselves in, which history has displayed very deeply, is a situation where the general public is banned from firearm ownership, while law enforcement and military are allowed the use of such equipment. This is a recipe for disaster and complete tyranny.

In a perfect world, there would be no such thing as guns...and it is in my personal opinion that I wish they were available to no one on the planet, and even better yet, were never invented in the first place. Unfortunately this is not the case, so we must logically deal with the situation at hand, based especially on the lessons suffered by oppressed nations of the past. If we want to maintain any level of liberty, it is imperative the playing field is level across the board. Without equality in this sense, in accordance with the state, we can kiss the miniscule level of freedom we still have left, goodbye.

Don't get me wrong here...I'm no fan of guns. In all reality, I find them to be a disgusting reflection of humanity's state of mind and awareness (or lack thereof). Their designed intent is to kill and no more...and it is because of this that I am not a fan. But like I said, the playing field must be even as long as they exist. As far as the big picture goes however, the underlying issue behind reckless acts of hate should not fall back on guns. It's all about the intent. Without an operator to, and an intent with a firearm, there is no murder. This goes for any weapon for that matter...or even no weapon at all. Overlooking this foundational aspect to said acts, while going after a scapegoat (guns), isn't only lazy and illogical, but is completely irresponsible.

Speaking of lazy arguments...there is a point of view out there floating around that likes to base their stance around statistics...specifically on murder vs. injury when dealing with an attacker. Of course, if murder can be prevented that is always a plus. Let's take a look at the stabbings that took place in that Chinese school the same day as CT shooting. Yes, lives were spared, however the quality of life these kids will endure throughout the rest of their existence will be very rough for them. Could you imagine being that young and having a madman bust in your school and start stabbing at you and everyone around you? These kids who suffered that experience have been traumatized for life. Everything will be different for them from here on out. It is an absolute tragedy.

So with all this being said, the main issue at hand here is.....how do we create an environment on the planet that will not foster this type of behavior and psychotic states of mind? How can we get everyone to be happy and stress free? That's what it all comes down to. Is this reality even a possibility? I would like to think so...but humanity has eons worth of growing up to do first.

gandhi_quote_natural_news.jpg

Anywho, I will now get off my pedestal...thank you for reading B)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it would be better for those kids in China to have died?

Awesome post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit eh?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

law enforcement and military are always going to hold a significant advantage over civilians, so that part is irrelevant. voting for the correct candidates will do a lot more to protect you from tyranny than your cheap guns. this isn't the 18th century anymore. good luck shooting down a drone if you ever decide to go forward with your reactionary "revolution"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is your opinion that everyone should have access to every type of firearm? or is your argument just that we shouldn't ban all firearms?

I'm just curious because last I checked there were no serious efforts to ban firearms entirely in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it would be better for those kids in China to have died?

Awesome post.

Either scenario ends in tragedy. If you die, everyone that loved you then suffers greatly, while you transition in peace. If you survive on the other hand, such as the Chinese stabbings, you run a high risk of living a life of fear and paranoia...your own personal hell...while those around you suffer from it. It's a toss up on which is worse. In the end, the only way to end such acts of violence is for people to stop having the intentions to do so. That is the only answer. When there is a will, there is a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel a lot better about my current thinking on this issue thanks to venom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

law enforcement and military are always going to hold a significant advantage over civilians, so that part is irrelevant. voting for the correct candidates will do a lot more to protect you from tyranny than your cheap guns. this isn't the 18th century anymore. good luck shooting down a drone if you ever decide to go forward with your reactionary "revolution"

Drones can be shot down but a better approach would be hacking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh right yeah so when you reactionaries shoot your pistols in the air like yosemite sam and ddos .gov websites let me know how that works out for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't shoot a drone down with a pistol. Well maybe, I really haven't given it that much thought. If its close enough I guess it's possible, though highly unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Looks like our DE depth is developing nicely.  Let's see his swim move--no wait--if he starts drowning, we'll never get him back in the boat. I still say they were a bit upset with him last season.  Remember the benching during the game following the altercationwith the coach?  Some people never recover fully from a knee injury, especially if they lack the discipline to rehab properly.  I wounder if that is the case? Seriously--he is a TE.
    • http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/carrier-plant-where-trump-saved-jobs-plans-layoffs/ar-BBBsNjX?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp A plant where jobs were purportedly saved by Donald Trump ahead of his inauguration is set to make at least 600 staff cuts, many before Christmas. Carrier had opted in December 2016 not to move a number of jobs to Mexico from its Indianapolis furnace factory, following a visit to the plant by Trump. The president claimed he had convinced Carrier to retain 1,100 jobs in Indianapolis rather than outsourcing them in Mexico. And of those 1,100 jobs Trump spoke of, 300 had reportedly never been threatened with a move to Mexico—meaning a total of 800 jobs had been saved. But the company has since announced that at least 600 employees at the factory will still be laid off, with the final 290 job cuts coming just ahead of Christmas. In a filing seen by CNN, the company announced it would be making an initial 338 job cuts in July, four in October and a further 290 jobs on December 22, just three days before Christmas. During a press conference at Carrier, Trump said: “that big, big beautiful plant behind us… will be even more beautiful in about seven months from now. They're so happy. They're going to have a great Christmas. That's most important. He added: “And that these companies aren't going to be leaving anymore. They're not going to be taking people's hearts out. They're not going to be announcing, like they did at Carrier, that they're closing up and they're moving to Mexico, over 1,100 jobs. “And by the way, that number is going to go up very substantially as they expand this area, this plant. So the 1,100 is going to be a minimum number,” he said. The plant said at the time the number of jobs saved was closer to 800, but explained it would be replacing some of the jobs that were saved with an automated system in order to save money, although CEO Greg Hayes did say there would be less money saved by the company in doing so than if they moved production to Mexico. Carrier did not immediately respond to Newsweek’s request for comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm thinking of another person I'd like to see get laid off, or fired.
    • Shep, Curtis Samuel, maybe Charles Johnson--Funchess in year 3--that could be solid.  Move KB to TE (or keep him away from the Krispy Kremes) and this could be a special group.