...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
You're right I did read you post incorrectly;
...It's just silly to think that they fucked up something this important. The fact is, they didn't...
So please forgive my confusion, if you feel the Founding Fathers got it right, are you saying that the Supreme Court got it wrong?
Is the Supreme Court "twisting their words"?
When and where did you take this oath? Did I take it, too?
Yet here you are, breaking your oath, fighting against the constitutional right to bear arms.
@ Blaine Leavitt,
So you sit in your little bunker with your AR15, and be all alone. Have fun my friend, and I will help my neighbor.
I always smile when I see the AR 15 comment as tho every gun owner has an AR 15. :)
Let me ask you a question:
When your neighbor is being threatened by a deranged killer with a loaded pistol, will you confront the killer with a firearm or will just make a verbal demand to drop the weapon?
Lets add some new American Spirit to this scenario: "When your neighbor is being threatened by a deranged killer with a loaded pistol" he took from his mommy's night table. See, she was sort of a "prepper" and was learning to shoot to protect herself from the army of zombies who will soon be looking to take her kraft mac and cheese. The good stuff, not the powdered stuff, but that whizzy stuff in the foil.
I should mention that If it went bad, would probably use my backup PK380.
Well something is better then nothing.
"The Founding Fathers (remember them) wrote the Constitution after releasing themselves from the tyranny of others, they realized that an armed populous was the best guarantee against tyranny, foreign or domestic, ergo the 2nd Amendment (gotta love those guys)."
"the tyranny of others"
Did you know that not all of us desire 'tyranny' over others? Sadly there are some that wear suits, manage churches, and wear military camoflag that might, but not all.
Using a well meaning constitutional amendment, to hide another form or 'tyranny', such as exploitation of fear, or political demagoguery, has become so obvious than that many of us have become exhausted by it, and would rather marginalize the 'users of tyranny' to a federal prison.
Sadly, we seem to educate our citizens to aspirations of 'power over' others, as a validation/enlargement of our self-esteem. Guns, lying, deceit, manipulation of data, stock and securities fraud, emotional and economic manipulation, can all be viewed as examples of the state of our 'civilization', and the state of our 'in the trenches' life style. It is almost like we are still living in the world of WW-I.
"I have no problem with others choosing to be unarmed but they shouldn't look to me to protect them from those who would choose to harm them, they are on their own."
There was no 'oath' involved. I have no guns, but I would do what I can to help or protect another, with or without one, out of the desire to maintain some human decency, and the hope that you would do the same. The "shouldn't look to me", shows a rather horrible disregard for other human beings, and to me, would indicate the presence of a psychopatholgy. If so, the rest of us should deny you access to a weapon, because you are not 'fit' to own one!
So, keep using the constitution, keep showing us the hand that would not protect another, we see the hiding brute....
@ James Cox,
There was no 'oath' involved. I have no guns, but I would do what I can to help or protect another, with or without one, out of the desire to maintain some human decency, and the hope that you would do the same.
If you are every unlucky enough to face that situation I hope you will come to your senses and not throw away your life on a fools errand. If your interpretation of "helping others" is throwing away your own life to benefit the deranged desires of a actual psychopath, that will help no one and will hurt those who love you, a noble but foolish use of the only life you will ever have.
I read the rest of your post but couldn't find a central point to respond to.
but I would do what I can to help or protect another, with or without one, out of the desire to maintain some human decency, and the hope that you would do the same. The "shouldn't look to me", shows a rather horrible disregard for other human beings, and to me, would indicate the presence of a psychopatholgy.
No you wouldn't. And this isn't a Disney movie where we all buddy up when it comes down to it. Grow up. If you are nothing but a complete stranger to me; If I can help you without endangering myself, I will. If I cannot help you without also significantly risking my own life, I will not. That's how it works. People value themselves more than others, it's the normal state, it's human. Nothing "psychopathic" about it. And it's the most you can expect from anyone. Emphasis on "expect," since you cannot demand anything.
So in the 'world' you would live in, others around you, are they something worth valuing, in and of themselves, or just walking meat for your table?
Maybe I am nieve, I thought that Atheists had a 'superior' ethical model than theists. In my experience, theists will betray others, if they do not believe like they do. I had hopped that atheists might be a little 'more' than this. In the end, 'each man for himself', will most likely end as 'no man standing'. I can understand the limits, and that an 'unreasonable' self-sacrifice would put the breaks on many of us here, but 'not helping'?
I will assume that this conversation has gone badly wrong. Returning to the theist camp would be an 'unreasonable' decision for me.
illegitimi non carborundum
James what's up with your reading comprehension? You seem to have skipped this part:
If I can help you without endangering myself, I will. If I cannot help you without also significantly risking my own life, I will not.
Nowhere did I say just "not help." It depends on how it affects you. So you would help someone even if it kills yourself? No you wouldn't, we all know that, because no sane person would do that for a complete stranger.