|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: So...more random shooting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
vimesay writes:
I think the problem is in fusing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights together. As far as I'm concerned, the Constitution should define how the government is constituted, not restrict what the government can do. The Bill of Rights should be tweaked as necessary by the constituted government.
One of the pitfalls of a written constitution I guess. The right to bear arms is a Right. With a capital R. Bestowed, unchanging and for all time....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Gun laws are fairly liberal in this country, but if you want a licence to carry a gun around on the street with you for self-defence, one of the requirements is to demonstrate that you can hit a .25 square-metre target from 10 metres away four times out of five.
As Stalinist a restriction on freedom as this may be, I feel a little bit more comfortable knowing that anyone likely to start shooting away in a public place has a fair chance of hitting what they're aiming at. Kind of like how we make people demonstrate they can drive before turning them loose on the roads. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
As far as I'm concerned, the Constitution should define how the government is constituted, not restrict what the government can do. That's because you folks are still owned by Her Majesty and run by the government the Crown decided was best for you since you are incapable of governing yourselves. Now down here in the real world we kicked His Majesty's hind quarters back to England and formed our own government our own way. The first one wasn't so good so we did this constitution thing with the expressed purpose of constituting a government as well as putting limits on what those scoundrels in government could do. Even that wasn't a hard enough restriction after what His Royal Snottiness had done to us so we appended even more sever restrictions on the scoundrels telling them precisely where they could not poke their dirty snotty arrogant little noses. Even though they may be necessary for the proper functioning of the universe majorities are known to go bad and governments are known to be worse. Placing ones rights at the beck and call of some central government, or worse yet, at the emotional whimsy of the popular majority, is exactly what we were bound by experience to avoid. We wanted rights that accrued to us as citizens as a matter of inalienable law that served us not some privileges temporarily extended to us from a government seen as separate and superior to us. Set the people's rights in concrete and make it damn difficult for some wayward government or some brainwashed impassioned majority to usurp those rights. Only when there is a clear consensus of a super-majority of We The People can our rights, the good ones and the ones that have become problematic, be usurped. Maybe when you Canucks grow up you can have a government of your own too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
AZPaul3 writes:
You need to catch up on your history. In 1935 all "dependencies" on the British Parliament were removed by mutual agreement. We didn't run away from home and we weren't kicked out. Both child and parent were mature about it.
That's because you folks are still owned by Her Majesty and run by the government the Crown decided was best for you since you are incapable of governing yourselves.... Maybe when you Canucks grow up you can have a government of your own too. AZPaul3 writes:
Yes, that's the problem. You did it the wrong way because you weren't ready.
Now down here in the real world we kicked His Majesty's hind quarters back to England and formed our own government our own way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
You need to catch up on your history. In 1935 all "dependencies" on the British Parliament were removed by mutual agreement. Not quite. The Statute of Westminster (in 1931, not 1935), removed most of Canada's dependence on the Westminster Parliament, but not all. The British Parliament still had the power to pass legislation on Canadian affairs at the request of the Canadian Parliament, and the Canadian Parliament did not have the right to amend its constitution without consent of the British Parliament. Canada attained full legislative independence only in 1982.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 611 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
And, another high school shooting in Colorado.
So far two people shot, and it's in a lock down. It looks like 1 student shot two others. No report on the condition of the victims as of yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
just happened today...on Friday 13th!
NPRLooks like an isolated incident of mental illness....how did he get the gun in the school, though?(shooter is dead)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That article's written like crap...
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Care to explain why you feel the article is "written like crap"? Or as that as deep as your thoughts go on the subject?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
I'd say it's written like crap because it's like the rest of the mainstream media, it leaves out important details, like the fact that the shooter was a "very opinionated socialist".
http://www.ijreview.com/...etail-about-arapahoe-high-shooter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
And that has what to do with the shooting?
I do not remember the political affiliations of any other school shooters making the news. I didn't know that being a socialist was some sort of psychological issue or what is your point. Keynesianism is not Socialism. I see no evidence in that article showing he is a socialist. Just because someone opposes GOP policies does not make them a socialist.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
And that has what to do with the shooting? News reporting, for at least the past several decades, isn't only about the few known facts of a public shooting incident. It's also about who did it, why did he do it, how could it have been prevented, etc. The shooter, Karl Pierson, will always be referred to as "Karl Pierson", not "Socialist Karl Pierson". Remember Ruby Ridge, and its bad guy, "white separatist Randy Weaver"? We seldom heard him only called Randy Weaver, his name usually had the "white separatist" in front of it. It's always implied in the news that we should never judge all those of the political left because of the actions of a few lunatics, but we should always judge all those of the political right because of the actions of a few lunatics.
I do not remember the political affiliations of any other school shooters making the news. That's because they had ties to the political left, not the right. If they had been Christian/conservative, you'd have heard plenty about it. Did you know that the Ft. Hood shooter was a registered Democrat/Muslim? That the Columbine shooters, while too young to vote, came from families that were registered Democrats and progressive liberals? That the Virginia Tech shooter wrote hate mail to president Bush and his staff? That the Colorado theater shooter was a registered Democrat and a staff worker on the Obama campaign? That the Connecticut school shooter was a registered Democrat and hated Christians?
I didn't know that being a socialist was some sort of psychological issue or what is your point. It's not thought of that way, because a few of its lunatics actions aren't tied to it by the news media. Being conservative isn't a psychological issue either, but a lot of people think it may be, because of how the tea party is tied to crimes committed by only a few lunatics.
Keynesianism is not Socialism. I see no evidence in that article showing he is a socialist. Just because someone opposes GOP policies does not make them a socialist. Just like when someone opposes Democrat policies it doesn't make them anti-science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
It's always implied in the news that we should never judge all those of the political left because of the actions of a few lunatics, but we should always judge all those of the political right because of the actions of a few lunatics. The political left's loonies are typically of the rather quaint, political-correctness-gone-mad, "let's re-brand Christmas as Winterval, to avoid offending non-Christians" variety though. The political right's loonies are more your left-eye twitching, hate consuming, anarchistic variety. The latter seem to correlate a little more with the type of lunacy that can lead to shooting people because they pissed you off/are the wrong colour/aren't you-and-you're-all-that-matters. The former seem to correlate more with too-regularly organized protest meetings at which hands are wrung, injustices are bemoaned, and too much vegan food is eaten. The left just has a cuddlier brand of loony.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
It's always implied in the news that we should never judge all those of the political left because of the actions of a few lunatics, but we should always judge all those of the political right because of the actions of a few lunatics. Pardon, but your paranoia is showing.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The left just has a cuddlier brand of loony. Well, except for all the shooting sprees lately.
The political left's loonies are typically of the rather quaint, political-correctness-gone-mad, "let's re-brand Christmas as Winterval, to avoid offending non-Christians" variety though. The political right's loonies are more your left-eye twitching, hate consuming, anarchistic variety. The latter seem to correlate a little more with the type of lunacy that can lead to shooting people because they pissed you off/are the wrong colour/aren't you-and-you're-all-that-matters. The former seem to correlate more with too-regularly organized protest meetings at which hands are wrung, injustices are bemoaned, and too much vegan food is eaten. No, you see, that's just the the biased left wing media lying to you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024