"almost wishing bad things on others" ?

mlovullo2000

No I will still be going to the show tomorrow. I have learned not to put somebodys personal beliefs over there art/music. But If I had the chance to meet Mr. Vedder, I would decline because he doesn't sound very stable and aggressive. I would much rather meet some of the other members of the band. Or Mudhoney, they seem like a lot of fun. I was never into buying their posters even though they look cool.

chadwick wrote:

so will you be limiting your pearl jam listening, show attending & poster purchasing?

chadwick

mlovullo2000 wrote:

No I will still be going to the show tomorrow. I have learned not to put somebodys personal beliefs over there art/music. But If I had the chance to meet Mr. Vedder, I would decline because he doesn't sound very stable and aggressive. I would much rather meet some of the other members of the band. Or Mudhoney, they seem like a lot of fun. I was never into buying their posters even though they look cool.

chadwick wrote:

so will you be limiting your pearl jam listening, show attending & poster purchasing?

he doesn't sound very stable & aggressive

you mean he doesn't sound very stable & seems aggressive?

backseatLover12

The OP just needs to let go of other people's opinions.

Because everyone has one, like assholes.

norm

wait...

the guy that's against guns and violence in general in unstable

but the people that are so lost in their paranoia that they need to have a deadly weapon with them at all times are completely sane

wow, just fucking wow

mlovullo2000

Yes, you're right. Sorry about that.

chadwick wrote:

mlovullo2000 wrote:

No I will still be going to the show tomorrow. I have learned not to put somebodys personal beliefs over there art/music. But If I had the chance to meet Mr. Vedder, I would decline because he doesn't sound very stable and aggressive. I would much rather meet some of the other members of the band. Or Mudhoney, they seem like a lot of fun. I was never into buying their posters even though they look cool.

chadwick wrote:

so will you be limiting your pearl jam listening, show attending & poster purchasing?

he doesn't sound very stable & aggressive

you mean he doesn't sound very stable & seems aggressive?

mlovullo2000

Yes, somebody that states "I think that you wouldn't want me having a gun either" sounds unstable. And as honest as he is with that statment, he shouldn't be trusted with a gun. And if you make statments like that are you truely against violence? Sounds like fighting fire with fire to me.

And again I don't know why we are going off topic and talking about other people " lost in their paranoia that they need to have a deadly weapon with them at all times". I am not talking about that issue. There is another message board for that. If you want my answer to that well, no they seem unstable too.

norm wrote:

wait...

the guy that's against guns and violence in general in unstable

but the people that are so lost in their paranoia that they need to have a deadly weapon with them at all times are completely sane

wow, just fucking wow

chadwick

don't be sorry. it's ok.

i am 100% positive ed is very stable not at all aggressive towards others. he may feel aggression in himself, that is good, that is why he is an artist. he writes & creates music & he paints & fucks around on a surf board.

you have nothing to be afraid of

chadwick

http://youtu.be/3Y2lG8KVRf0
watch the whole thing
@ 5:36 it is so fucking on

for the OP

Go Beavers

mlovullo2000 wrote:

Yes, somebody that states "I think that you wouldn't want me having a gun either" sounds unstable. And as honest as he is with that statment, he shouldn't be trusted with a gun. And if you make statments like that are you truely against violence? Sounds like fighting fire with fire to me.

And again I don't know why we are going off topic and talking about other people " lost in their paranoia that they need to have a deadly weapon with them at all times". I am not talking about that issue. There is another message board for that. If you want my answer to that well, no they seem unstable too.

It's not unstable, it's being honest. No one who's angry should have a gun on them. I wonder how many gun owners would be willing to admit that about themselves.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Go Beavers wrote:

mlovullo2000 wrote:

Yes, somebody that states "I think that you wouldn't want me having a gun either" sounds unstable. And as honest as he is with that statment, he shouldn't be trusted with a gun. And if you make statments like that are you truely against violence? Sounds like fighting fire with fire to me.

And again I don't know why we are going off topic and talking about other people " lost in their paranoia that they need to have a deadly weapon with them at all times". I am not talking about that issue. There is another message board for that. If you want my answer to that well, no they seem unstable too.

It's not unstable, it's being honest. No one who's angry should have a gun on them. I wonder how many gun owners would be willing to admit that about themselves.

I wonder how many people in jail wished they had never owned a gun? We've seen it too many times: a guy loses his anger, a gun is used, and a victim is dead.

How can anyone argue that having more guns is a wise thing? I like how nobody has addressed the study I linked in this thread. The one that states the obvious: more guns equals more deaths by guns.

brianlux

mlovullo2000 wrote:

I do not think it is responsible for people to have guns laying around. In my state it is actually a crime to do so. But we are getting off the topic here. He said, "And really, the best argument that I can hear, or the one that they have outside of, you know, being in the Constitution is that it’s fun. It’s fun. And so is driving at night at 95 miles an hour. I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people." Which means the people that have fun with guns. And then he states that he doesn't have to because bad things happen to them anyway.

So he states that he gets angry at people that say its fun to shoot guns and then "almost" wishes bad things on them. And I don't know how spontaneous his thought was because he also states " if I didn't have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, I think that you wouldn't want me having a gun either." Thats a bold statement.

My point is, I feel that it is not right to wish ill on others just because they believe in something different than there own. Its ok to disagree, not ok to wish horrible things or almost wish horrible things onto others.

Have you never felt so passionately about something that you had fleeting thoughts like this? Ed's statement does not sound like one coming from an irrational person. People who feel anger at others else and act on that anger by hurting them are more likely to be sociopaths. People who feel anger toward others and express their anger verbally but vent it through a creative process like music are normal people.

PJPOWER

Wow, there for a second I "almost" gave a shit about what the anti-gun nuts had to say..."almost".

unsung

I wonder if he has armed security. If he does he is a hypocrite.

chadwick

unsung wrote:

I wonder if he has armed security. If he does he is a hypocrite.

i believe he had a stone & cement wall built around at least the front of his home that faces the street due to folks crashing into his home. i believe the first car smacked into his home fucking shit up... crazed fans ya know

then the wall was erected. then car # 2 rams his security wall at 50 mph. crazed fans loving him so much they wanna harm him & his family.

this is what i gather from watching a short clip interview on the matter.

if i were ed... shotguns & handguns ON as well as samuari swords

i'd be teaching my children & wife how to take care of themselves. my wife & kids would know how to handle all the weapons listed as well as know self defense techniques. training of some kind is pretty much an everyday ritual; physical fitness, target shooting, on & on.

unsung

So he wants to defend himself and his family? Odd, so do I.

kenny olav

I am extremely close to wishing bad things on these fuckers: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/loca ... 51271.html They definitely need to not ever bring that shit to Newtown... That they'd even think about it shows their lack of decency.

chadwick

unsung wrote:

So he wants to defend himself and his family? Odd, so do I.

& that is fine & expected by most folks. what is ridiculous is the wreckless folks leaving guns & ammo lying about freely so a small child who knows nothing about guns can easily & on accident smoke someone or & themselves or 'george' family python. (snakes & guns.. :evil: ..frig). (run)

wreckless adults leaving guns & ammo laying around are brain dead. i am going to admit that my dad was even an asshole with shit for brains as he had both loaded & unloaded weapons all over the place. the deal is he trusted us boys beyond a shadow of doubt. the only reason someone was not killed or injured is actually a fucking miracle as well as a straight up fact that us boys were not fucking stupid little shits with guns. guns were left alone unless pops was home. by the way... i am confident when we were 4 yrs old, dad didn't leave loaded guns on his night stand.

we were put through full on bootcamp & pops & grandpa did not fuck around. guns were serious business in our home. i am confident most homes with guns lying about freely in them are run by parents going the extra 25 miles to educate their kids about gun safety.

again, we had zero toy guns; this is one way to confuse a kid.


i do find it amazing that some politicians & whomever else in the spotlight believe they should be armed to protect their family & themselves while us common folk should not be allowed to own a firearm. can't think of her name right now but she was a politician releaved of her duties recently. she thought like this here. :fp:

kenny olav

unsung wrote:

I wonder if he has armed security. If he does he is a hypocrite.

All he was talking about was people who are against 1. universal background checks and 2. banning high-capacity magazines. He's not talking about banning all guns.

brianlux

Reading some of the posts that express displeasure over what Ed said you'd think he said "Pearl Jam is more popular than Jesus". People, please, no album burning ceremonies. Send them to me!

Four questions for those of you who are unhappy with Ed’s comments:

1. Have you noticed that most of you are from the US?
2. Are you aware that crime in most other countries is lower than here in the US?
3. Are you aware that in most other countries it is much more difficult to obtain guns?
3. Do you understand there is a correlation between these things?

vant0037

chadwick wrote:

i do find it amazing that some politicians & whomever else in the spotlight believe they should be armed to protect their family & themselves while us common folk should not be allowed to own a firearm. can't think of her name right now but she was a politician releaved of her duties recently. she thought like this here. :fp:

Well but here's the thing: it's fine to say that you want to defend your family and you want to be able to have a gun to do so.

And if that were the position of the pro-gun lobby, it would be half-way reasonable.

But it's not their position. They're not worried about their own families any more than they are about our own families. It's politics, pure and simple.

Because they continue to oppose any regulation of high-magazine weapons.

And they oppose background checks.

And they oppose doing anything that impedes their ability to get any kind of weapon they want, at any time, whatever the societal costs.

If you want to get to the crux of the matter, ask someone from the pro-gun lobby why one handgun or shotgun isn't sufficient protection for their family. You'll likely hear about everything from the weaponry the federal government has, to some extrapolated tangent about the TRUE meaning of the Second Amendment, to things called "false flag events."

You'll only hear "protection of my family" raised when it serves some agenda, whether that's making a disingenuous emotional appeal to the victims of violent crime ("if only you had had a gun"), or impugning the integrity of anyone who dares to suggest that maybe, just maybe, guns are part of the problem ("if you've ever seen a gun, you're a hypocrite, and any points you make, however reasoned, are invalid"). It's a mindset that's so entrenched it's beyond belief, one that has prevented any reasonable discussion on this issue for too long.

And yeah, it's fucking aggravating and nauseating, to the point where - in some awful utilitarian calculation - you might find yourself wondering what it would take to convince some people that a problem exists, even as a threshold matter. And those opposing any meaningful discussion don't offer any solutions. They'll tell you more guns are the answer, or less regulations are the answer, or armed guards are the answer. They'll point to mental health as the problem, but then curiously, are typically members of a political party that consistently votes to defund social service and educational programs aimed at addressing mental health problems. They'll appear so willing to talk about everything that causes gun violence but their precious guns (which are oh-so-fun by the way). And so nothing gets done, shit keeps happening, and we're all left here to again mourn the kids we bury and our staggering inability to explore why that tide rolls on.

So yeah, I can understand where Ed's coming from.