Gun Control

[DefenderAO]

28 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Yes, everyone here already knew that.

 

Go back to using the word relativism a lot. The tortured logic of those posts were at least entertaining.

Yes, because it's relevant.  Looking forward to understand where people's truths evolve.  Not quite entertaining as much as fascinating (in some respects) and familiar (in other).

[NM11046]

2 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

If letting you know people need to belong and be loved, know it deeply, I can't help fuel your agenda in a different way.  And I will not hide my stance that transitioning  hopping genders is not the sustainable path to deep joy.  

 

Freedom can be scary. It isn't preserved through restricting the wrong target audience.  Neither is safety preserved.

 

First time in non football related anything on HB.  Pretty simple.  And I've become illumined to the perspectives of some members.  

 

 

My only question - how do  you know what brings someone deep joy?  I am going to make the leap based on your posts here that you don't know or haven't spent any time with a transgender person, so who are you to judge what makes them joyful?  

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that someone's joy isn't sustainable.  You're allowing your own lack of exposure, to define an opinion without facts.  

 

NOW - GUNS.  I will not hide my stance that nobody should be able to access them without considerable background checks, licensing, insurance, training, and bullets should be taxed up the wazoo. It's not the sustainable path to deep joy. 

[Archy1221]

@Lorewarntjr following article highlights what I was speaking about in regards to having a much higher mandatory sentencing for illegal possession as a trade off/compromise for taking some guns away from law abiding owners.  I’m places like DC there really isn’t a deterrent for illegal possession yet the hood owners are expected to just turn there’s in???

 

https://www.mediaite.com/crime/thats-b-s-d-c-police-chief-rejects-u-s-attorney-blaming-cops-for-lack-of-prosecutions-amid-crime-wave/

[suh_fan93]

 

[Scarlet]

This topic summarized in one tweet

 

 

[Lorewarn]

16 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

@Lorewarntjr following article highlights what I was speaking about in regards to having a much higher mandatory sentencing for illegal possession as a trade off/compromise for taking some guns away from law abiding owners.  I’m places like DC there really isn’t a deterrent for illegal possession yet the hood owners are expected to just turn there’s in???

 

https://www.mediaite.com/crime/thats-b-s-d-c-police-chief-rejects-u-s-attorney-blaming-cops-for-lack-of-prosecutions-amid-crime-wave/

 

 

Like I said I'm relatively agnostic about harsher punishments, don't really care either way with this issue but overall in terms of the criminal justice system I stand much more on the side of reworking the core philosophies towards being directed towards a rehabilitative approach rather than a deterrence/punitive one.

 

There are a number of other side angle approaches to getting illegal guns off the streets. Don't know what the best solutions are but there are plenty proposed by people much smarter than I that are worth looking at - unfortunately, none of that really matters because the first step of actually being committed to finding solutions is the one we're stuck on as long as the NRA keeps lining the D.C. coffers. 

[DefenderAO]

16 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

My only question - how do  you know what brings someone deep joy?  I am going to make the leap based on your posts here that you don't know or haven't spent any time with a transgender person, so who are you to judge what makes them joyful?  

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that someone's joy isn't sustainable.  You're allowing your own lack of exposure, to define an opinion without facts.  

 

NOW - GUNS.  I will not hide my stance that nobody should be able to access them without considerable background checks, licensing, insurance, training, and bullets should be taxed up the wazoo. It's not the sustainable path to deep joy. 

You believe your gun control measures will solve the problem mid-term?  What about short term for the psychopaths posting about murdering people?  Wait until ammo is taxed "out the wazoo?"  They seem to be actively ticking...

 

Your leap would be wrong. I've worked with three in the near term.  One of the three I knew before and after.  All were amicable and hard working.  I appreciated their acumen and high give-a-crap to get things done with integrity.  In a working context, that's more than many of us get from other employees.  Those three, for a couple reasons (time spent, as one) do not impact my assertions or reflect anything beyond driving work outcomes.  

 

Additionally, data is extremely helpful, hundreds of good conversations with a variety of demographic and socioeconomic people, reading, introspection.  I enjoy hearing others' perspectives and sharpening my understanding based upon these conversations.  

 

Also, I can empathize deeply with a relativistic world view.  I used to believe that way vehemently.    

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

This topic summarized in one tweet

 

 

1) MTG is an idiot

2) she is right about SRO’s in school, not much else in her rant

3) Moskowitz is an idiot as it’s impossible for him to correlate the assault weapons ban elimination with the Nashville shooting.  The shooter could have just as easily used handguns to kill 6 people. 
 

Nothing gets done when two idiots in Congress talk to each other like this. 

[Archy1221]

34 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Like I said I'm relatively agnostic about harsher punishments, don't really care either way with this issue but overall in terms of the criminal justice system I stand much more on the side of reworking the core philosophies towards being directed towards a rehabilitative approach rather than a deterrence/punitive one.

 

There are a number of other side angle approaches to getting illegal guns off the streets. Don't know what the best solutions are but there are plenty proposed by people much smarter than I that are worth looking at - unfortunately, none of that really matters because the first step of actually being committed to finding solutions is the one we're stuck on as long as the NRA keeps lining the D.C. coffers. 

appreciate your thoughts. 
 

Sure and I understand the NRA boogeyman argument but it isn’t nearly as powerful as it once was.   Change can be had if there is compromise.  Right now it’s just a one way street.  (Meant to say the NRA isn’t as powerful as it once was. Sorry for any confusion )
 

I would challenge anyone out there that wants to have a change in gun laws to come up with a plan that will demonstrably achieve getting guns off the hands of criminals illegals first, then you will have a much much easier time getting some common sense folks to give up some gun rights.  
Im not a big owner, but to a man (or woman) every single person who is that I’ve talked to about gun reform, says it’s a non starter for them to give up their guns and the safety they say the guns provide just to have criminals keep them in their possession. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

 

 

The very issue of moral relativism - my truth and your truth oppose.  Who is right?  "Just don't infringe or impede on my truth."  Until ones truth does infringe...like one is a sociopath and decides truth is people need to die because of his/her pain.  Example is too fringe?  It's a. an example and b. certainly relevant 

 

Moral relativism is not "my truth versus your truth." It's acknowledging that views of morality are subject to change given a variety of mitigating circumstances, including the person involved. It's pretty common that the person most sure of their truth doesn't recognize their own hypocrisy. If you want to define the problem, you should probably know the definition of the problem. Also, there are zero people on this board defending murderous sociopaths. 

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your heart is in the right place, but I'm afraid I can't bow to the logic or motives of the guy who wrote the paragraph below. These words are an utter mess, suggesting an author who is really conflicted, a tad dishonest, and floundering in the relativism he claims to abhor. 

 

  3 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

I believe homosexuals are deeply loved and cared for beyond maybe what they even know...but would cherish to hear.  I believe the same for heterosexuals.  I believe sexual/gender actualization and realization does not yield true inner joy being sought baby that individual.  Maybe temporal happiness or reprieve from pain...but it's not sustaining.  

 

btw, it's okay to have your truths evolve as you grow and learn. As good at it felt, we all stopped believing in Santa Claus at some point.

 

Now here's a fresh honest question: what country has done the best job maintaining the moral high ground, and should we try to replicate it? 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

35 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

 

Your leap would be wrong. I've worked with three in the near term.  One of the three I knew before and after.  All were amicable and hard working.  I appreciated their acumen and high give-a-crap to get things done with integrity.  In a working context, that's more than many of us get from other employees.  Those three, for a couple reasons (time spent, as one) do not impact my assertions or reflect anything beyond driving work outcomes.  

 

Additionally, data is extremely helpful, hundreds of good conversations with a variety of demographic and socioeconomic people, reading, introspection.  I enjoy hearing others' perspectives and sharpening my understanding based upon these conversations.  

 

You know what else is really helpful?  The link I sent you to a highly professional study on the subject.

 

But I will say this post suggests you are open to the perspectives of others, and might even concede that trans people could find happiness in their personal lives, much the way they operate with amicability and integrity in your workplace. 

[DefenderAO]

9 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Moral relativism is not "my truth versus your truth." It's acknowledging that views of morality are subject to change given a variety of mitigating circumstances, including the person involved. It's pretty common that the person most sure of their truth doesn't recognize their own hypocrisy. If you want to define the problem, you should probably know the definition of the problem. Also, there are zero people on this board defending murderous sociopaths. 

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your heart is in the right place, but I'm afraid I can't bow to the logic or motives of the guy who wrote the paragraph below. These words are an utter mess, suggesting an author who is really conflicted, a tad dishonest, and floundering in the relativism he claims to abhor. 

 

  3 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

I believe homosexuals are deeply loved and cared for beyond maybe what they even know...but would cherish to hear.  I believe the same for heterosexuals.  I believe sexual/gender actualization and realization does not yield true inner joy being sought baby that individual.  Maybe temporal happiness or reprieve from pain...but it's not sustaining.  

 

btw, it's okay to have your truths evolve as you grow and learn. As good at it felt, we all stopped believing in Santa Claus at some point.

 

Now here's a fresh honest question: what country has done the best job maintaining the moral high ground, and should we try to replicate it? 

 

 

We'll agree to continually differ here.  Morality doesn't change nor does truth.  It's a flag-in-the-wind concept.  If you have moving truth and morality targets, what is the definition of right or wrong?  It can all sway, move, change.  And the expectancy there's never conflict or overlapping infringement, when one person is moving the truth target, is not realistic.   

 

I appreciate the aside on defending murderous sociopaths, but I never stated there were any doing so.  More pressingly, I asked what one would do with the ticking time bomb sociopaths I posted in earlier links.  This is rubber-meet-road.  We all want reform and to save lives.  

 

The quote you have difficulty with is not complex from my perspective but seems confusing and foreign to you.  I will contend, someone created as one gender, then deciding to transition to the opposite, does not find the sustaining joy they seek.  Possibly a reprieve from something, or some happiness, but not lasting joy.  Joy and happiness are different.  The former is not dependent on any external circumstance and roots in despite externals.  The Merriam dictionary is a mess on its definition - "good fortune on possessing what one desires (in part)" yet wealthy people are often some of the most empty, lonely people you'll meet.

 

I suspect our home base here won't get us any closer to you understanding my point.  It's fine.  I won't rescind or walk back my assertions on the human condition and how that shows in today's America.  

 

One place we will agree is we hope it improves.  

 

[Decoy73]

41 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I would challenge anyone out there that wants to have a change in gun laws to come up with a plan that will demonstrably achieve getting guns off the hands of criminals illegals first, then you will have a much much easier time getting some common sense folks to give up some gun rights.  
Im not a big owner, but to a man (or woman) every single person who is that I’ve talked to about gun reform, says it’s a non starter for them to give up their guns and the safety they say the guns provide just to have criminals keep them in their possession. 

So when will we know when criminals no longer have guns?  How do we solve that problem?  Tougher punishments for gun crimes--I'm all for that.  Another problem with this whole gun debate (and pretty much every other political topic) is that both sides focus too much on the extremes.  No realistic person should expect any legislation involving confiscating guns from reasonable law-abiding citizens.  It's just not happening.  What can happen is preventing criminals and the "mentally ill", for lack of a better term, from buying guns in the first place.  Longer waiting periods.  More extensive background checks.  Red Flag laws.  None of these deprives these supposedly good citizens of having a gun to protect themselves.  But every one of those gets opposed by the Right.  I hope you're not suggesting we can't do these things that could help prevent the murder of children and other innocents until we come up with the impossible task of removing guns from criminals.  

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

The quote you have difficulty with is not complex from my perspective but seems confusing and foreign to you.

 

I suspect our home base here won't get us any closer to you understanding my point.

 

I won't rescind or walk back my assertions on the human condition and how that shows in today's America.  

The narcissism in this post is pretty amazing. Yep, nobody understands except you.