|
| Thread: The Mvass plan for fixing America |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:12 AM |
|
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:18 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 10:57, 21 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Someones comes to your house and hits u hard in the face. You (not you!) are a whimp..no power...so u get your gun and shoot him. Death coz of a face hit?
Would you rather get into a fight with him? Would that be better? Your attitude is not controlled by power, you'll do it anyway, and forcing you off isn't going to change much in you.
I think u miss an important point here. If I do not have the possibility to kill that guy, and also not the strength to kick his A**, I have to think about a different solution to "get my right". Maybe I go to the police, report him, he will get sentenced by the court and I will get "smart-money". So in the end I am the winner. If I will just shoot him to death, I will get reported, will get sentenced by the court, most likely to death penalty, so I am the loser at the end.
Vigilantism shouldn't be a possibility in any modern country.
Quote:
The "Death coz of a face hit" should be rather dealt with by penalizing you in a court. But I don't think it's your fault since he entered your property, so there if the Court can sentence a criminal to death penalty (if he violated some important law or whatever) I think you can have a word in that too.
So your opinion is, every private person has the same rights than a court has? I am allowed to lock up a burglar in my house for 8 years, by only giving him bred and water, because the court could do that aswell?
I am not sure if u are serious here, but if you are, youz really need help from experts...
I heard from a case in the USA 1 or 2 years ago, where an older man shot a guy to death, because he and some of his fellows hit the old man's car with baseball sticks.
So on one hand u have "willful damage to property", most likely sentenced by money and/or low jail penalty, but in reality sentenced by death penalty.
You won't tell me now you think the old man did well, do you?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:26 AM |
|
|
There are other methods of incapacitation other than KILLING HIM which is just about the most morally wrong thing someone can do.
Taser? lol.
@Binabik:
Quote:
Please don't put words in my mouth that I never said, nor even implied. And I wish you would delete it. Someone else already referenced it as if I really said something like that.
Binabik:
One could also argue that if more of the students had guns, someone would have stopped this guy.
In the US, individuals with guns prevent an estimated 800,000-1,200,000 crimes a year.
Sorry for the misunderstanding..
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
yasmiel
Supreme Hero
Former Chessmaster
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:29 AM |
|
|
I heard similar story few years ago. A older man in USA shot down a kid because he was running over his lawn. I guess in the end statistics will speak for themselves.
It is clearly that no-guns policy is better, however, I'm not sure that it could work in USA like it works everywhere else. They are different people, used to having it. they expect burglars to be armed in usa. Here we don't (they don't need guns to rob you).
I guess with different type of burglars/robbers, you need different type of protection, or at least thats what you are thinking in such areas. (even tho guns wont save your life, and are more likely to end it)
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 12:02 PM |
|
|
What I don't get is why you can buy a sniper rifle or an anti-tank gun for self defence 
Quote:
Actually, a lot of people are able to defend themselves with guns when their homes are being broken in to. Taking away a valuable method of self-defense because of some people who abuse the system is foolish. Think about it. You make guns illegal for citizens to own. Is that going to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns? No. It's similar to how drugs are illegal, yet they are incredibly easy to obtain.
Largely, yes.
You can't draw that comparison because there are many countries where a ban on guns clearly does work.
A gun in Australia is not incredibly easy to obtain, smuggle, or carry around etc. and as such your common criminal isn't going to have one.
Of course there might be in gang wars but that's another problem altogether and doesn't really affect your average person.
Quote:
Furthermore, in most instances of disarmament, the crime rates have gone up, not down. For example, look at Great Britain and Australlia. Both countries banned firearms after national tragedies and took away all the legally owned guns from the citizens. Now the hot-home invasions, robberies, and other violent crimes have spiked. What what fear do criminals have of robbing a home if they know the owner isn't going to be carry a firearm? And you say it's already too late to defend yourself? It's better to have a chance to defend yourself than not having one at all.
How about improving home security instead of making everybody shoot everybody?
Besides you can't use statistics to help this argument. I could pull 1000 quotes (eg from Bowling For Columbine) that prove otherwise.
And there are other ways to defend yourself besides killing the other person.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 02:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well depends how you define gifted really.
Well, not just focus on geniouses, but on above-average students.
Quote:
theres a lot there thats just under-average fodder that probably should be improved by a better education
Everyone is improved by a better education. But above-average students benefit more from it than below-average students.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 02:19 PM |
|
|
ABOUT GUNS
Quote:
So you are saying the criminal's right not to be harmed while committing a crime outweighs the innocent victim's right to defend himself and his property?
Y-E-S! When you say harmed you may not mean to "kill" him but that is the most likely thing to happen. Yasmiel explained the situation perfectly. Why do people think they have any right to kill people?! We are talking about ending an existence!! Some people talk like this isn't a big deal! WHAT?! What is more valuable than LIFE?! Now there may be criminal individuals alive but we have the law and the state to punish them and not kill them. The first human right is the right to live isn't it? Every (and I mean EVERY) person has the right to live.
Quote:
A criminal's rights should never outweigh the rights of the victim. The criminal chooses to break the law.
Well yes of course you are right but that doesn't cancel his human rights does it? Again nobody has the right to kill anybody.
Quote:
He chooses to create the dangerous situation. He chooses to put himself in a situation where the victim feels threatend. He intends to do harm to the victim. Why should the innocent victim be peanlized for the actions of a criminal?
How is he being punished? You take away his gun... that doesn't make the criminal act less criminal. But it prevents the victim from commiting a much higher crime (killing the intruder). I'm not saying breaking in is right but for heavens sake you still don't have the right to KILL!!!
Quote:
And yes, I do value property and personal security over the life of someone who willingly breaks the law to harm innocent victims. If a criminal is killed while breaking into someone's home, it doesn't bother me a bit. That's one less criminal in the world.
In my personal opinion you are under valueing a humans right.
I know (or atleast this is my opinion)that there is a lot of thrash and filth in the human society which are uncivilaized goons not worthy of being called human unfortunately they are (from a biological point of view) so they have human right's which prevents any other human to claim that they have the "right" to kill them. There are so many people that I think don't deserve to live as I find them repulsive, disgusting, uncivilized, unreasonable, unethic, inmoral, etc. but
a)IF I would think that I have the right to kill them that wouldn't make me much better and I would not any longer be able to call myself civilised (this is just my opinion! I'm not calling anybody who belives they may kill uncivilized!)
Quote:
No. There are some circumstances in which we have the right to take someone's life (to punish them for a crime, or euthanasia) and there are many circumstances in which we don't.
There are no circumstances under which a human does not have his human rights therefore there can be no situation in which one can decide that this person no longer has the right to live. This is not about protecting scum who has commited intolreable crimes but about not mutating into some narrowminded goon who thinks he (or the people he supports) may decide who has the right to live and who doesn't. This is a question of one owns reasonability to see this.
ABOUT CREATIONISM AND EDUCATION
Quote:
TheDeath or Azagal. You really think that creationism should be taught to children at schools in a similar manner that evolution is?
Well TheDeath has already summed it all up pretty nicely for me. He is right in my opinion. But being right doesn't mean much in our society anyway. TheDeath system would work perfectly if humans were reasonable... unfortunately this is not the case. The masses are stupid and unreasonable makeing choices depending on their emotions and not their reason. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. It just prevent's tolerance and reason but lol what do the masses care? As long as they can live their lives as they want them to they'll never change their minds.
I guess this obviously sounds like I think of myself as "better" which would be extremly arrogant and narrowminded.Well I'm not (atleast I try not to be).
But I'll try to summarize my point
There is no person who can claim that he knows what's best for individuals and therefore deciding whats "right" and "wrong". This means that in school you shouldn't be forced to accept any theory because nobody can know anything for sure!
BUT people should be presented with the choices what to belive in at an point where they have the knowledge and abilities to decide for themselves without being influenced by anyone. Of course there are proven facts and they should be thougth but this doesn't mean that things that are not proven shouldn't be thougth.
Quote:
So?
I think everyone should be as free as possible, to choose what he wants to learn. And for that he needs to be shown possibilities, not hiding it from him
 You can not say that anything is wrong with this statement it's as true and progressive as you can get.
Quote:
Education isn't about choices.
Taaaadaa! Narrowmindedness par excellence! THAT'S a dictator speaking! Oh so who is the enlightend person who makes the choice what education is about?
You reaaaally don’t get it do you? We are talking about theories! Who is anyone to decide for people what is “right” and what is “wrong”? You should give people the skill to evaluate and make decisions on their own (as TheDeath also suggested) then they can decide what they want to believe in. Just tell the people about evolution and creationism and then let them decide for themselves. If an individual makes a decision based on the indoctrination of anyone it’s wrong and bad. This is why we need people to be educated so that they can make the decision for themselves! As soon as anyone forces anyone to learn something it’s wrong no matter how true /reasonable the content was. This is not about the content but about how you should teach it.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 04:54 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:14, 21 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
I think u miss an important point here. If I do not have the possibility to kill that guy, and also not the strength to kick his A**, I have to think about a different solution to "get my right".
Now seriously, even if you don't have the gun you still want to kill him. Because that's what you would do if you had the gun. So that means, if you don't have the gun, you cannot do it (so easily), not because you don't WANT to, but because you CAN'T. So in your mind at this point, you still WANT to kill him.
So since "killing" someone for entering your home is pretty much "not smart", then I think you're already not thinking straight at this moment, so without a gun, you could possibly get in fight with him, etc.
Mind you, the only way to get this done "right" is for people to change their minds and think deeper of the consequences -- laws do not change your thoughts, they only make you try to achieve it harder.
Quote:
Maybe I go to the police, report him, he will get sentenced by the court and I will get "smart-money". So in the end I am the winner.
Cool, the only thing is that this "smart" mentality (I'm not sarcastic) is achievable by your own mind, not by laws -- because if you want to kill the guy for entering your home and take your gun to do it, you also want to kill him even if you don't have the gun -- otherwise (if you would be thinking straight), you would go to the police regardless of the gun's existence!
Quote:
So your opinion is, every private person has the same rights than a court has? I am allowed to lock up a burglar in my house for 8 years, by only giving him bred and water, because the court could do that aswell?
Would you rather prefer corrupt judges or a blackmailed jury?
EDIT: Now seriously, I'm not saying anything along the lines of "every man for himself", but I don't think restricting all the "rights-management" to the court would be ideal either, as anyone can be corrupted, not just 'criminals'
Quote:
You won't tell me now you think the old man did well, do you?
Of course not, but he would have wanted to kill those men too, even without a gun -- and since he wouldn't be thinking straight anyway, I think more trouble would have been generated.
but then, cops are people too, and corrupt/drunk/etc.. so we should ban guns from them? (not that matters too much does it? )
Regardless of your views on me, I'm trying to keep an open mind, and see both sides of this guns-thing.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted February 21, 2008 07:11 PM |
|
|
Some things are wrong for sure ...
Regarding guns:
Have you watched this one? I really liked it. Here is a plot summary.
And yes, I am a strong supporter of restricting guns for individuals in ANY country. On the other hand, I recognize the diversity and the entirely different culture in US; still, some things definitely need to change. I find it ridiculous to have guns so easily accessible while on the other hand the shop assistant in a supermarket won't even touch your pack of beers to place them into a bag if he/she is less than 21! 
____________
The empty set
|
|
DarkShadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 07:26 PM |
|
|
|
I agree with gun's.Actualy,only those who have hunting license (whatever it's called) should have acces to some ligth rifle's.As for other countries's...There are 5 trouble's:Irak,Iran,Cuba(castro mostly),North korea and palestine.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Taaaadaa! Narrowmindedness par excellence!
Come on, don't tell me you'd trust an elementary schooler to make choices for themselves! If they had a choice, all they'd to is play with trucks in the sandbox. That would get them nowhere. Education (at least primary education) isn't about choices. It's about teaching children skills so that they can learn more and do better in the world. And, personally, I'd say that primary education is where most of the problem lies. Primary education is often far too slow. I'll tell you that 75% of the material we convered in 7th grade was already covered in both 6th and 5th grade. There's no point in teaching the same stuff again and again and again every year. Now, in high school, the situation improves, but by then we're so far behind that going at a normal pace still gets you behind where you would be if your primary education would be better. And everyone should already know algebra by the time they get to high school.
Assuming that they do, we can indeed have more choices in high school. I like how things are better than they were. The smarter people are in AP classes, the average ones are in Pre-AP classes, and the dumb ones are in "regular" classes. And people are free to choose in between them. But the classes are designed for different people. In primary schools, the classes are designed for the slowest people. I think that such separation between levels of classes shouldn't wait until high school.
And I hate how, in the education system, "above-average" means "average", "average" means "below-average", and "below-average" means "sucks".
Quote:
We are talking about theories!
More specifically, we're talking about scientific theories. Which creationism is not.
Public schools are secular institutions. Thus, they shouldn't teach religion. Now, it's fine if they teach about religion and about creationism, but that should be in a different class, not in any science class. When I was first taught about evolution at school, the teacher said, "I have to teach you this, but I don't believe it." We should at least have teachers who believe what they teach.
I'm sorry if I sound bitter about the education system.
Regarding guns and self-defense.
I'm for gun control because I doubt that people would be ready to defend themselves if someone broke into their house. But they have the right to defend themselves however they want to. If they stab the intruder and kill them, that's fine. The burglar knew the risks when he or she decided to commit the crime. People make actions. Those actions have consequences. And one often can't call the police when one's house is broken into. And death can be a punishment.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:18 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:20, 21 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
Come on, don't tell me you'd trust an elementary schooler to make choices for themselves! If they had a choice, all they'd to is play with trucks in the sandbox. That would get them nowhere. Education (at least primary education) isn't about choices. It's about teaching children skills so that they can learn more and do better in the world.
This is where you're plain wrong (besides, that's what college is about, since it gives you specialty to apply for jobs).
Yes, I agree elementary schoolers don't make choices for themselves, but primary school is the thing that "grows them up" so to speak. As a matter of fact, that's what primary school is supposed to be about, to make them think more maturely, not to learn how to work or apply for a job (they don't even work, they only play). They should come out of elementary school with more opinions and self-thinking, otherwise it'll be hard once you're indoctrinated at a fragile age.
Basic arithmetic and language, yes should be taught, but also the experiences of life and self-confidence. When was the last time you saw children have an opinion? It's not because they are too young since I have experiences with kids that prove otherwise, but it's because this aspect is ignored without showing any importance to it. Children can be smarter (as in "mature") than you think. They'll play and do things like this from time to time, but they can have opinions, and we should encourage rather than bury it. After all, let them think for themselves instead of learning something by heart and not be creative at all!
Quote:
More specifically, we're talking about scientific theories. Which creationism is not.
Again I will ask, so?
Quote:
Now, it's fine if they teach about religion and about creationism, but that should be in a different class, not in any science class.
Uh, when did I say they should be in the same class?
Quote:
When I was first taught about evolution at school, the teacher said, "I have to teach you this, but I don't believe it." We should at least have teachers who believe what they teach.
I'm glad that you have your self-thinking opinions about this teacher of yours (i.e not agree with him/her), but seem to impose otherwise on other children
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is where you're plain wrong (besides, that's what college is about, since it gives you specialty to apply for jobs).
Don't tell me that you want people set several years back in college because they didn't learn trigonometry in high school! And not everyone goes to college, so we have to make high school better.
Quote:
They should come out of elementary school with more opinions and self-thinking, otherwise it'll be hard once you're indoctrinated at a fragile age.
School can't teach you how to think.
Quote:
It's not because they are too young
It's because they're too stupid. Not all of them, but many. And school can't do everything. The parenting has to be good too, and school can't do anything about that.
Quote:
After all, let them think for themselves instead of learning something by heart and not be creative at all!
You can't really teach people to think for themselves. They have to learn it on their own. And creativity? Sure, it's a good idea in theory, but what it mainly ends up being is "artistic projects" which involve scribbling on papers with crayons and cutting stuff out. I always hated doing this in elementary school, and I can definitely say that it's not what made me creative.
Quote:
Again I will ask, so?
Only science belongs in science class.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:40, 21 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
Don't tell me that you want people set several years back in college because they didn't learn trigonometry in high school!
Well it was their choice to ignore trigonometry, so I doubt they'll go to a specialty in college that requires that (at least primarily).
Quote:
And not everyone goes to college, so we have to make high school better.
Better, as in "learn everything I want you to learn"?
Quote:
School can't teach you how to think.
Doh, when did I say that (and if I did perhaps I typoed)? I said school should teach you how to think for yourself, actually this means that "it doesn't put up thoughts in your head, or how to imagine it", but rather lets you do it yourself (i.e free).
Quote:
It's because they're too stupid. Not all of them, but many. And school can't do everything. The parenting has to be good too, and school can't do anything about that.
Since you're talking about parents, I'd say school has to be a "parent" in itself too. It has to grow them up. Perhaps the word "teach" does not best describe this.
Quote:
You can't really teach people to think for themselves. They have to learn it on their own.
Yes, they have, and that's why the word "teach" might not be the best chosen here. People don't grow up if they know calculus (I'm not saying calculus is bad, but "growing up" and "knowing stuff" are two different things). Like parents, schools should help children develop their awareness and make them more mature. In this way even children with incompetent parents will have something to rely on.
Quote:
And creativity? Sure, it's a good idea in theory, but what it mainly ends up being is "artistic projects" which involve scribbling on papers with crayons and cutting stuff out. I always hated doing this in elementary school, and I can definitely say that it's not what made me creative.
Great, proves you had your own opinions when you were in elementary school
besides, when I said doing 'creative' stuff, I meant imagining things best as they can -- and by 'imagination' I mean everything (even atoms, for example, have to be 'imagined' and I bet everyone does differently, see?).
honestly you're not saying that Einstein was not creative, for example, do you? In that case relativity would still be a mystery.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 10:58 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:59, 21 Feb 2008.
|
Quoting "The Death":
Quote:
I think everyone should be as free as possible, to choose what he wants to learn. And for that he needs to be shown possibilities, not hiding it from him (like you intend to). What makes you think students don't want religion, just because you don't want it? Or what makes the evolution theory more 'important'? Just because you think it's more logical?
A lot of interesting stuff in this thread, but it's too all over the place to be coherent at all. Nevertheless, I'll interject just a little comment about the above quoted phrases (which have been stated by a few others as well).
I have no problem with creationism being taught in school per se. In fact, I don't think a class on world religions would necessarily be a bad thing at all, insofar as misunderstanding over and failure to accept other religions is a major source of the world's problems, and creationism could find a nice little niche in such a class (however, while I'm not against a religion class on ethical grounds, I think you'll agree that because religion is such a touchy subject, NOBODY would be able to agree on a curriculem for such a class on religion is probably better off left to higher education).
However, where we part ways as far as our opinions go is over the matter of the context in which creationism is or is not taught. The point is, creationism has no place being taught next to evolution IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM. Yes, yes, give students the whole story about evolution if you want. Present alternate scientific theories if you wish (there are - or were - a few, but most have been debunked or incorporated into the modern theory of evolution). But when you teach creationism in a science class, you mistakenly give the students the impression that creationism is science, and it most certainly is not. It is no different from teaching students about the American Civil War in biology class. Yes, we can all agree that students should know about the American Civil War, and certainly we can discuss the inclusion of the American Civil War in a history class, but the American Civil War is not science, and neither for that matter is creationism. When you teach creationism is science class, you are doing the students a disservice, even though your intentions may have been benign. The only place creationism has in science class is as a useful example of what and what does not constitute a scientific theory.
And for the record, this argument of mine says nothing about whether creationism is correct or incorrect. Right or wrong, creationism is still not science, and that is why it should not be taught in science class.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted February 21, 2008 11:13 PM |
|
|
Science should teach only scientific theories based on observable, testable evidence.
If kids want to learn about creationism then they can do it outside school or in an R.E. class or something but should never impose it on other students.
Creationism and I.D. aren't really things that you can be tested or examined on.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 12:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well it was their choice to ignore trigonometry, so I doubt they'll go to a specialty in college that requires that (at least primarily).
Yes, but trigonometry is useful to know even if you don't go into a specialty that requires it.
Quote:
I said school should teach you how to think for yourself, actually this means that "it doesn't put up thoughts in your head, or how to imagine it", but rather lets you do it yourself (i.e free).
And how would it do that?
Quote:
Great, proves you had your own opinions when you were in elementary school
Everyone has opinions. Even babies have opinions. They have the opinion that they should be fed. You don't have to go to school to form opinions.
Quote:
honestly you're not saying that Einstein was not creative, for example, do you?
Of course he was creative. But how do you "teach" creativity?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 02:43 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 02:51, 22 Feb 2008.
|
@ TheDeath : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Religion
Please counter that. Thanks.
And that aside I have a very simple question for you. WHY do you believe? On what basis are you convinced that what you believe is true?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 03:23 AM |
|
|
And I'd like to reply to something I missed earlier.
Quote:
imagine telling people their child is worse then everyone else so theyre not being focused on at school!
Imagine telling people that their child is worse than everyone else's so they're being put into classes with children who are at best slow and at worst juvenile criminals. I know that many of the slower children are criminals. And the ones that aren't are unfortunately exposed to their influence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 22, 2008 03:32 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 03:38, 22 Feb 2008.
|
Right now, all I want to cover is the debate about guns (and the subsequent arguements).
Well we wouldn't want to hurt anybody now would we? I mean, just because they are trying to rob/rape/kill/harm/ect you, we got to protect them..right? Can't hurt the poor dears, oh heavens no.
I take it most of you that advacate that have not been a victim of a violent crime? From the sounds of it, most havn't even had somebody close to them a victim of a violent crime.
Let me clear up a few misconceptions. Criminals don't care about 'laws'. It doesn't matter if there is a law against guns, they will get them regardless. Just makes it that much easier for them if the law abiding citizens can't defend themselves.
Also, they don't care about you. Not your health, your rights, anything. They want to take what they want, whatever that maybe, any way possible.
Hey, I am a peaceful person. The last thing I want to do is hurt somebody. I will be <insert appropriate curse word(s) here> before I just let somebody come into my house and hurt my family however. The minute they stop considering my rights, I feel perfectly ok when I stop considering theirs.
That is one thing about this world. People who have never experienced something, try to tell people who have what is best. They have no clue, but think they know everything. I've known people who were adamant about gun laws, ect, who have became a victim of a viloent crime suddenly change their tune.
Peopl should have rights. Life, liberty, the persuit of happiness. However, when they start ignoring other peoples rights to the above, they 'sign away' those rights. If somebody is trying to hurt you, kill you, ect (and it can be proven) and something happens to them it is called self defense. Never should a person be told, hey you can't defend yourself. Just let them do whatever (including kill you). It's rediculous.
I don't advocate violence. I do advocate people's right to defend themselves. If you have a problem with guns, don't carry them. Seems simple enough. No, everybody has got to stick their noses in everybody elses business because they know how to live their life better.
"You can't teach your children relgion. I am against it, and I know better then you how your children should be raised."
"You can't discipline your children. Hey I havn't had any children, but I know how to raise your's better then you do."
ect...
(Yes there is a big difference between discipline and abuse, and anybody who abuses a child should loose the 'right' to live, but that is another debate).
If you don't harm anybody else, you should live how you choose to live. The minute you cross that line and hurt somebody else, that should change.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
