self defense or gun rights? lol the planet goes to shit and people are starving, war is everywhere but gun access is the only thing some people care about......GET OVER IT ALREADY! jeeesh talk about small beans
Quite easily, those that are the strong anti-gunners are also those that can afford armed protection services. They have armed bodyguards because of their wealth, I don't have the funds to have one for myself, so I need to take care of my family. They want to take that away from me.
Quite easily, those that are the strong anti-gunners are also those that can afford armed protection services. They have armed bodyguards because of their wealth, I don't have the funds to have one for myself, so I need to take care of my family. They want to take that away from me.
Wow, unsung. I mean seriously, wow. I'll have to fire my goons who didn't prevent me from getting punched in the head. It's hard to get good help these days.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I think you understand what I mean, the Rosie Odonnells, Michael moores, the rich that want to disarm but have their own armed hired guns.
Well under the current everyone can easily get a gun, they need protection. It's the gun culture, rightly or not, that puts them in this position due to assets and fame. Not fair comparison. Hope I again made you smile.
I think you understand what I mean, the Rosie Odonnells, Michael moores, the rich that want to disarm but have their own armed hired guns.
Yes but the only problem is that you said "liberals are hypocritical on self-defense", not "the very to super rich and/or famous liberals are hypocritical on self-defense".
And lets ask, just how hypocritical are those who are in the spotlight and more likely to be targeted? Do we want all famous people walling up their houses with concrete blocks and sneaking around unguarded? I don't see the need for the average Joe or Jane Doe to walk around with a gun. I don't see how that will reduce violence. But I do see the need for famous people I admire to be well guarded. I don't see that as hypocritical. I see it as being sensible and logical because they are far more likely to be target wherever they go than you or I. I don't see it as hypocritical that Neil Young uses 50 times more fuel than I do to reach 50 million times more people than I do about the message of global warming. I don't find that in the least bit hypocritical. I actually find it economical.
Maybe you'd consider rephrasing your statement because really, I don't get why you would say the average liberal is hypocritical about self defense or environment- at least not any more than any of us are hypocritical about anything. A while back a certain Mr. DS made the sure point that we're all at least a little hypocritical.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't feel that way at all, nice job at painting an untrue picture.
hahahaha again, the world is being poisoned, people are starving to death, war is rampant, and banks own the world. What are you concerned about? You with a personal arsenal, with the greatest access to weaponry the world had ever seen, are most concerned (based off your near daily gun posts) with a paranoia that someone is gonna take your guns.... SMALL BEANS! GET OVER IT! Lol painted an untrue picture you walked right into that one
They are no better than you or I. They don't have a higher need for self defense than anyone else.
Far be it from me to defend the Hollywood Liberati, but they do have greater need for self defense. I'm sure you don't have a stalker.
(Not saying they all have stalkers, but there's enough John Lennons, Rebecca Schaeffers, Ronald Reagans, Monica Seles, Sandra Bullocks, so on and so forth that tell me their need for daily protection is in fact probably more than mine. Now, if you're talking about ordinary, daily, living in whatever city, suburb, etc. I agree. But, once you are in the public eye, unfortunately, you are a greater target than you or I. This line of argument while clever and simple is specious at best. Sure, they're not BETTER than you or I - we are both clearly BETTER. However, that doesn't define probabilities of danger.).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Gun rights results in celebrities needing to protect themselves.
This is false as well in so far as cause and effect is being assigned. In my above narrative, Monica Seles still needed protection and not gun was involved. And, while, yes some of the other examples do, the commonality is an imbalanced person, not the gun. The gun raises the level, but Seles could have just as easily been killed (and likewise, Reagan was not either). Guns may highten the "impact," but they don't cause the need itself. The need still exists as long as Mental Health issues are not addressed properly.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And back to the OP - I am not the least bit conflicted. I enjoy the art for what it is. Most of the basis of the political ramblings and songs are at the root the same feelings amongst most of humanity. Nobody WANTS war (despite what folks attribute to others, though yes there are exceptions). So, while I may not agree with the path, the intent is still the same.
What bothers me is when folks speak up, but don't like folks speaking back to them disagreeing. Ed's actions at the Nassau Coliseum was inexcusable. Not because he bashed Bush. But, because he was ignorant and unwilling to listen to and understand anyone that disagreed.
And as with anything else, people learn from their experiences even if they refuse to admit when they are wrong. So, there's no lingering confilct there for me either. We've all done things and made statements that we regret. We've also all made statements that others take and twist for their own desires rather than understanding the root of where the narrative and feeling is coming from. The world is a complicated place, and educated folks don't see it as this or that. It's shades. And within those shades, most people agree more than they realize.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And back to the OP - I am not the least bit conflicted. I enjoy the art for what it is. Most of the basis of the political ramblings and songs are at the root the same feelings amongst most of humanity. Nobody WANTS war (despite what folks attribute to others, though yes there are exceptions). So, while I may not agree with the path, the intent is still the same.
What bothers me is when folks speak up, but don't like folks speaking back to them disagreeing. Ed's actions at the Nassau Coliseum was inexcusable. Not because he bashed Bush. But, because he was ignorant and unwilling to listen to and understand anyone that disagreed.
And as with anything else, people learn from their experiences even if they refuse to admit when they are wrong. So, there's no lingering confilct there for me either. We've all done things and made statements that we regret. We've also all made statements that others take and twist for their own desires rather than understanding the root of where the narrative and feeling is coming from. The world is a complicated place, and educated folks don't see it as this or that. It's shades. And within those shades, most people agree more than they realize.
I love how "shades" alludes to both the spectrum of color - vision / seeing - and blinds / blinders.
I don't feel that way at all, nice job at painting an untrue picture.
hahahaha again, the world is being poisoned, people are starving to death, war is rampant, and banks own the world. What are you concerned about? You with a personal arsenal, with the greatest access to weaponry the world had ever seen, are most concerned (based off your near daily gun posts) with a paranoia that someone is gonna take your guns.... SMALL BEANS! GET OVER IT! Lol painted an untrue picture you walked right into that one
They are no better than you or I. They don't have a higher need for self defense than anyone else.
Far be it from me to defend the Hollywood Liberati, but they do have greater need for self defense. I'm sure you don't have a stalker.
(Not saying they all have stalkers, but there's enough John Lennons, Rebecca Schaeffers, Ronald Reagans, Monica Seles, Sandra Bullocks, so on and so forth that tell me their need for daily protection is in fact probably more than mine. Now, if you're talking about ordinary, daily, living in whatever city, suburb, etc. I agree. But, once you are in the public eye, unfortunately, you are a greater target than you or I. This line of argument while clever and simple is specious at best. Sure, they're not BETTER than you or I - we are both clearly BETTER. However, that doesn't define probabilities of danger.).
Their lives are no more important than mine or yours, but they can afford someone to watch their back. I don't know about you but I can't.
Gun rights results in celebrities needing to protect themselves.
This is false as well in so far as cause and effect is being assigned. In my above narrative, Monica Seles still needed protection and not gun was involved. And, while, yes some of the other examples do, the commonality is an imbalanced person, not the gun. The gun raises the level, but Seles could have just as easily been killed (and likewise, Reagan was not either). Guns may highten the "impact," but they don't cause the need itself. The need still exists as long as Mental Health issues are not addressed properly.
Allow me to elaborate. Celebrity has less need of protection walking in Switzerland than he does in the US directly due to gun culture and proliferation of guns. Is this entirely due to guns, no, but it is a factor so stand by my statement.
Just stumbled into this convo.Is this the thread where conflicted non bleeding heart liberal PJ fans come to vent? Or is it for Hummas recipes.Because both are very good things. So it's ok that I loved Reagan,Hate tax hikes and seeing my hard earned money go to stupid shit and entitlements,and as a buisness owner want less gov in my affairs?I like being a Fiscal conservative,but have a conscience and could give two shits about other people's personal agendas.Live and Let live. I view Personal Protection as a smart thing and think You do what you gotta to take care of your family.Then again I live in the south and its common place here.Am I in the right place or do I need to go back into the dark and continue to listen to a bunch of far left nonsense overwhelm these boards?Thats ok too,its kinda entertaining.
Just stumbled into this convo.Is this the thread where conflicted non bleeding heart liberal PJ fans come to vent? Or is it for Hummas recipes.Because both are very good things. So it's ok that I loved Reagan,Hate tax hikes and seeing my hard earned money go to stupid shit and entitlements,and as a buisness owner want less gov in my affairs?I like being a Fiscal conservative,but have a conscience and could give two shits about other people's personal agendas.Live and Let live. I view Personal Protection as a smart thing and think You do what you gotta to take care of your family.Then again I live in the south and its common place here.Am I in the right place or do I need to go back into the dark and continue to listen to a bunch of far left nonsense overwhelm these boards?Thats ok too,its kinda entertaining.
They are no better than you or I. They don't have a higher need for self defense than anyone else.
Far be it from me to defend the Hollywood Liberati, but they do have greater need for self defense. I'm sure you don't have a stalker.
(Not saying they all have stalkers, but there's enough John Lennons, Rebecca Schaeffers, Ronald Reagans, Monica Seles, Sandra Bullocks, so on and so forth that tell me their need for daily protection is in fact probably more than mine. Now, if you're talking about ordinary, daily, living in whatever city, suburb, etc. I agree. But, once you are in the public eye, unfortunately, you are a greater target than you or I. This line of argument while clever and simple is specious at best. Sure, they're not BETTER than you or I - we are both clearly BETTER. However, that doesn't define probabilities of danger.).
Their lives are no more important than mine or yours, but they can afford someone to watch their back. I don't know about you but I can't.
Ok. I already agreed to that fact. You neglected to respond to what I was disagreeing with - do you think you have a higher or lower probability of such an encounter than they do? Again, I am not talking about if you are each individually walking down a dark alley in a dangerous neighborhood. Or, if you individually live in a high crime area. Both of which the circumstances might say you have equal probability (though their wealth would probably imbalance this as well, but I'll stipulate). However, regardless of situation, are they more likely to encounter a random attacker or you?
That question has nothing to do with who is better (you and I are), or wealth (they are). It has everything to do with being in the public eye and the entitlement that gives to certain deranged people that wouldn't think about you or I b/c they have no clue who we are.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Gun rights results in celebrities needing to protect themselves.
This is false as well in so far as cause and effect is being assigned. In my above narrative, Monica Seles still needed protection and not gun was involved. And, while, yes some of the other examples do, the commonality is an imbalanced person, not the gun. The gun raises the level, but Seles could have just as easily been killed (and likewise, Reagan was not either). Guns may highten the "impact," but they don't cause the need itself. The need still exists as long as Mental Health issues are not addressed properly.
Allow me to elaborate. Celebrity has less need of protection walking in Switzerland than he does in the US directly due to gun culture and proliferation of guns. Is this entirely due to guns, no, but it is a factor so stand by my statement.
What is the diversity of Switzerland? (And don't think diversity simply in terms of racial which is what most people define it as - that is one very simplistic, minute aspect of diversity. I'm talking true diversity in terms of not only ways of thinking and doing, but clinical/medical, socio-economic, so on and so forth. Diversity is a complicated thing that no country has even close to the US). Guns are a factor in severity or magnitude perhaps. But, not the CAUSAL factor which is what your initial statement was.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Just stumbled into this convo.Is this the thread where conflicted non bleeding heart liberal PJ fans come to vent? Or is it for Hummas recipes.Because both are very good things. So it's ok that I loved Reagan,Hate tax hikes and seeing my hard earned money go to stupid shit and entitlements,and as a buisness owner want less gov in my affairs?I like being a Fiscal conservative,but have a conscience and could give two shits about other people's personal agendas.Live and Let live. I view Personal Protection as a smart thing and think You do what you gotta to take care of your family.Then again I live in the south and its common place here.Am I in the right place or do I need to go back into the dark and continue to listen to a bunch of far left nonsense overwhelm these boards?Thats ok too,its kinda entertaining.
My advise is that if you show respect toward those with whom you do not agree with on everything you might find the train useful and interesting. When discussions get become rife with personal bashing (i.e. "a bunch of far left nonsense") they bog down or get locked quickly. You might want to check out the forum "dropping bombs" sticky.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
They are no better than you or I. They don't have a higher need for self defense than anyone else.
Far be it from me to defend the Hollywood Liberati, but they do have greater need for self defense. I'm sure you don't have a stalker.
(Not saying they all have stalkers, but there's enough John Lennons, Rebecca Schaeffers, Ronald Reagans, Monica Seles, Sandra Bullocks, so on and so forth that tell me their need for daily protection is in fact probably more than mine. Now, if you're talking about ordinary, daily, living in whatever city, suburb, etc. I agree. But, once you are in the public eye, unfortunately, you are a greater target than you or I. This line of argument while clever and simple is specious at best. Sure, they're not BETTER than you or I - we are both clearly BETTER. However, that doesn't define probabilities of danger.).
Their lives are no more important than mine or yours, but they can afford someone to watch their back. I don't know about you but I can't.
Ok. I already agreed to that fact. You neglected to respond to what I was disagreeing with - do you think you have a higher or lower probability of such an encounter than they do? Again, I am not talking about if you are each individually walking down a dark alley in a dangerous neighborhood. Or, if you individually live in a high crime area. Both of which the circumstances might say you have equal probability (though their wealth would probably imbalance this as well, but I'll stipulate). However, regardless of situation, are they more likely to encounter a random attacker or you?
That question has nothing to do with who is better (you and I are), or wealth (they are). It has everything to do with being in the public eye and the entitlement that gives to certain deranged people that wouldn't think about you or I b/c they have no clue who we are.
Probability is irrelevant. Just because they are rich and famous doesn't grant them a higher level of the right to defend themselves. It doesn't matter that they are more of a target, their rights aren't greater than any of ours.
By that logic the bum of the street shouldn't be allowed to defend himself at all, he's got no money, he's not famous, nobody asks for his autograph. Thankfully that's not the case, and his life is worth something.
They are no better than you or I. They don't have a higher need for self defense than anyone else.
Far be it from me to defend the Hollywood Liberati, but they do have greater need for self defense. I'm sure you don't have a stalker.
(Not saying they all have stalkers, but there's enough John Lennons, Rebecca Schaeffers, Ronald Reagans, Monica Seles, Sandra Bullocks, so on and so forth that tell me their need for daily protection is in fact probably more than mine. Now, if you're talking about ordinary, daily, living in whatever city, suburb, etc. I agree. But, once you are in the public eye, unfortunately, you are a greater target than you or I. This line of argument while clever and simple is specious at best. Sure, they're not BETTER than you or I - we are both clearly BETTER. However, that doesn't define probabilities of danger.).
Their lives are no more important than mine or yours, but they can afford someone to watch their back. I don't know about you but I can't.
Ok. I already agreed to that fact. You neglected to respond to what I was disagreeing with - do you think you have a higher or lower probability of such an encounter than they do? Again, I am not talking about if you are each individually walking down a dark alley in a dangerous neighborhood. Or, if you individually live in a high crime area. Both of which the circumstances might say you have equal probability (though their wealth would probably imbalance this as well, but I'll stipulate). However, regardless of situation, are they more likely to encounter a random attacker or you?
That question has nothing to do with who is better (you and I are), or wealth (they are). It has everything to do with being in the public eye and the entitlement that gives to certain deranged people that wouldn't think about you or I b/c they have no clue who we are.
Probability is irrelevant. Just because they are rich and famous doesn't grant them a higher level of the right to defend themselves. It doesn't matter that they are more of a target, their rights aren't greater than any of ours.
By that logic the bum of the street shouldn't be allowed to defend himself at all, he's got no money, he's not famous, nobody asks for his autograph. Thankfully that's not the case, and his life is worth something.
I'll go along with your twisting my logic and say - well, the bum on the street really doesn't defend himself, now does he? Or is the styrofoam cup in his hand really a Cam-era (sing that last part in the voice of Paul Simon)?
And, where did you get that I'm saying they have MORE right than you? You have an equal right to defend yourself. My response to you was in relation to your asking why they need armed guards (so to speak) and you don't. I would make their armed guards follow the same comprehensive and exhaustive background check as I would you. If you want a gun, you have the right. You also have the responsibility. Which means full and comprehensive background check and registry along with full legal responsibility with what anyone does with your gun. What's wrong with that?
Folks forget that with rights come responsibilities. The Constitution is not free rights for everyone.
I do wonder why you'd be against some sort of National Gun Registry with full and comprehensive background checks required. If you don't like your name being on a list b/c of your paranoia, maybe:
A) you really should qualify for a gun (paranoia really should be a limiting factor) don't own the gun
Your choice. No freedoms have been taken away. I'm still pissed I'm not allowed to yell, "Fire!!!" in the middle of a packed movie theater. My rights have been trampled.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Comments
And lets ask, just how hypocritical are those who are in the spotlight and more likely to be targeted? Do we want all famous people walling up their houses with concrete blocks and sneaking around unguarded? I don't see the need for the average Joe or Jane Doe to walk around with a gun. I don't see how that will reduce violence. But I do see the need for famous people I admire to be well guarded. I don't see that as hypocritical. I see it as being sensible and logical because they are far more likely to be target wherever they go than you or I. I don't see it as hypocritical that Neil Young uses 50 times more fuel than I do to reach 50 million times more people than I do about the message of global warming. I don't find that in the least bit hypocritical. I actually find it economical.
Maybe you'd consider rephrasing your statement because really, I don't get why you would say the average liberal is hypocritical about self defense or environment- at least not any more than any of us are hypocritical about anything. A while back a certain Mr. DS made the sure point that we're all at least a little hypocritical.
hahahaha again, the world is being poisoned, people are starving to death, war is rampant, and banks own the world. What are you concerned about? You with a personal arsenal, with the greatest access to weaponry the world had ever seen, are most concerned (based off your near daily gun posts) with a paranoia that someone is gonna take your guns.... SMALL BEANS! GET OVER IT!
Lol painted an untrue picture you walked right into that one
(Not saying they all have stalkers, but there's enough John Lennons, Rebecca Schaeffers, Ronald Reagans, Monica Seles, Sandra Bullocks, so on and so forth that tell me their need for daily protection is in fact probably more than mine. Now, if you're talking about ordinary, daily, living in whatever city, suburb, etc. I agree. But, once you are in the public eye, unfortunately, you are a greater target than you or I. This line of argument while clever and simple is specious at best. Sure, they're not BETTER than you or I - we are both clearly BETTER. However, that doesn't define probabilities of danger.).
What bothers me is when folks speak up, but don't like folks speaking back to them disagreeing. Ed's actions at the Nassau Coliseum was inexcusable. Not because he bashed Bush. But, because he was ignorant and unwilling to listen to and understand anyone that disagreed.
And as with anything else, people learn from their experiences even if they refuse to admit when they are wrong. So, there's no lingering confilct there for me either. We've all done things and made statements that we regret. We've also all made statements that others take and twist for their own desires rather than understanding the root of where the narrative and feeling is coming from. The world is a complicated place, and educated folks don't see it as this or that. It's shades. And within those shades, most people agree more than they realize.
Nice post there, Edson.
You'll never make me walk into anything.
Their lives are no more important than mine or yours, but they can afford someone to watch their back. I don't know about you but I can't.
So it's ok that I loved Reagan,Hate tax hikes and seeing my hard earned money go to stupid shit and entitlements,and as a buisness owner want less gov in my affairs?I like being a Fiscal conservative,but have a conscience and could give two shits about other people's personal agendas.Live and Let live. I view Personal Protection as a smart thing and think You do what you gotta to take care of your family.Then again I live in the south and its common place here.Am I in the right place or do I need to go back into the dark and continue to listen to a bunch of far left nonsense overwhelm these boards?Thats ok too,its kinda entertaining.
There's a few of us here, stick around.
That question has nothing to do with who is better (you and I are), or wealth (they are). It has everything to do with being in the public eye and the entitlement that gives to certain deranged people that wouldn't think about you or I b/c they have no clue who we are.
Probability is irrelevant. Just because they are rich and famous doesn't grant them a higher level of the right to defend themselves. It doesn't matter that they are more of a target, their rights aren't greater than any of ours.
By that logic the bum of the street shouldn't be allowed to defend himself at all, he's got no money, he's not famous, nobody asks for his autograph. Thankfully that's not the case, and his life is worth something.
And, where did you get that I'm saying they have MORE right than you? You have an equal right to defend yourself. My response to you was in relation to your asking why they need armed guards (so to speak) and you don't. I would make their armed guards follow the same comprehensive and exhaustive background check as I would you. If you want a gun, you have the right. You also have the responsibility. Which means full and comprehensive background check and registry along with full legal responsibility with what anyone does with your gun. What's wrong with that?
Folks forget that with rights come responsibilities. The Constitution is not free rights for everyone.
I do wonder why you'd be against some sort of National Gun Registry with full and comprehensive background checks required. If you don't like your name being on a list b/c of your paranoia, maybe:
A) you really should qualify for a gun (paranoia really should be a limiting factor)
Your choice. No freedoms have been taken away. I'm still pissed I'm not allowed to yell, "Fire!!!" in the middle of a packed movie theater. My rights have been trampled.