Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Guest042416 · 02-10-2013, 07:47 AM

Our government has a huge stock pile of nuclear weapons u lose guns won't save u u are defenseless in that scenario uf ur that scared of the government go live somewhere else and get back to me after ur there for a month u would be back in a heartbeat

GP · 02-10-2013, 07:49 AM

really? You can't be that stupid to think they are going to aim nuclear weapons at people on our own land. They would be killing themselves. C'mon get your head out of your you know what. If that is the best you can come up with, you don't deserve to be in this discussion.

Doove · 02-10-2013, 07:56 AM

Listening to some people speak, (including some in here) i have a greater fear that "the people" will become needlessly tyrannical than i do that our government will become tyrannical.

When a person with a gun doesn't get what he wants, he becomes an angry person with a gun.

SweetElizabeth · 02-10-2013, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doove

Listening to some people speak, (including some in here) i have a greater fear that "the people" will become needlessly tyrannical than i do that our government will become tyrannical.

When a person with a gun doesn't get what he wants, he becomes an angry person with a gun.

Anger is not a primary emotion.

I can see where your thought process lays, but also believe it would boil down per person.

Guest042416 · 02-10-2013, 08:28 AM

Gp really u don't think lol ur that dumb then

Guest042416 · 02-10-2013, 08:30 AM

If u smelllllll. Wat the rock is cookin

jackfengshui · 02-10-2013, 08:41 AM

I started this thread to question the wisdom of the NRA to publicize the fact that it considers such a broad spectrum of society as its enemies. I really did not want to trigger another heated argument about guns. Unfortunately, this is what the thread has become.

The argument is about how to interpret the Second Amendment in the 21st century. There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. We are lucky to have the American version, which is pretty good but is still an evolving work in progress after more than 200 years. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are useful starting points, but we should be mature enough to re-interpret or modify them as circumstances change. We used to allow only white guys to have the vote. We have changed our mind about that. We used to prohibit alcohol. We have changed our mind about that. There is deep divide about the role of military-style weapons in civilian society and what the Second Amendment says (if at all) about that. Reasonable people can disagree, but should also be able to find some middle ground. We value our individual freedom but, even in a free society, there has to be restrictions for the common good. For example, we don't want people to own explosives that can blow up the entire neighborhood. I hope similar common sense can prevail in the gun debate.

Doove · 02-10-2013, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjwstw

Gp really u don't think lol ur that dumb then

I love that he has me on ignore.....means i get the last word in!

Guest042416 · 02-10-2013, 09:26 AM

Gp is naive

SweetElizabeth · 02-10-2013, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackfengshui

I started this thread to question the wisdom of the NRA to publicize the fact that it considers such a broad spectrum of society as its enemies.......

Again, CNN's quote. Not the NRA's.

If the NRA wishes to post who does not support them, good for them! The information is interesting for pondering one's own point of view.

Do we buy chickens from slaughterhouses that are cruel? (<-- that is a debate in itself for vegans/non vegans) Do we support indies who have bait and switched/mugged? Do we support eating vegetables that use certain chemicals during growth? Do we support non profits that spend some of their monies in causes we do not believe in? Do we buy aerosol cans when it effects the ozone? Why do we bury our dead with all the cement waste? Why do we cremate our dead when mercury is released? Why do people judge beatniks? lol

Do we even research or care about any of that until it is plastered all over everywhere??

I think it is a good thing that they posted it. That list will effect each person differently.

CNN dubbed it an enemy list. I call it information, a lead for researching the subject of supporters, and contemplating how that falls into the entirety of any one person's feelings and thoughts..

Maybe I'm an American with a fetish for or emotional attachment to thinking something through.

Maybe I have a poets mind that simply seeks depth.

jackfengshui · 02-10-2013, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetElizabeth

Again, CNN's quote. Not the NRA's.

Again, you are strictly-speaking correct. If you google, you will find that almost all the numerous news outlets that reported this story described it as the "enemies list".

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetElizabeth

If the NRA wishes to post who does not support them, good for them! .

Thanks for expressing your counter opinion about my original point. That was what I wanted to solicit.

SweetElizabeth · 02-10-2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackfengshui

Thanks for expressing your counter opinion about my original point.

You're welcome! I thoroughly enjoy the heavier topics here at the boards. Variety and diversity is what I think nails it for me.

I mean, I can research the topic, join in, or just go to the next topic.

If I wanted to seek out gun enthusiasts, the NRA, CNN, or anything specific and find a discussion board, I think most of the discussions found would be pertaining to one topic only.

Imagine that! Variety and diversity at an Escort Client Community Information Exchange.

;-)

Guest042416 · 02-10-2013, 10:04 AM

word

offshoredrilling · 02-10-2013, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjwstw

Gp is naive

no he is not. Did the USSR nuke itself ??????

But I can see Iran nuking itself

GP · 02-10-2013, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackfengshui

I started this thread to question the wisdom of the NRA to publicize the fact that it considers such a broad spectrum of society as its enemies. I really did not want to trigger another heated argument about guns. Unfortunately, this is what the thread has become.

The argument is about how to interpret the Second Amendment in the 21st century. There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. We are lucky to have the American version, which is pretty good but is still an evolving work in progress after more than 200 years. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are useful starting points, but we should be mature enough to re-interpret or modify them as circumstances change. We used to allow only white guys to have the vote. We have changed our mind about that. We used to prohibit alcohol. We have changed our mind about that. There is deep divide about the role of military-style weapons in civilian society and what the Second Amendment says (if at all) about that. Reasonable people can disagree, but should also be able to find some middle ground. We value our individual freedom but, even in a free society, there has to be restrictions for the common good. For example, we don't want people to own explosives that can blow up the entire neighborhood. I hope similar common sense can prevail in the gun debate.

Awesome post Jack! I guess this is why we elect representatives and senators to pass bills and a president to sign them into laws that the majority of their constituents want. It is my opinion that if THE PEOPLE want to effect change to the 2nd amendment, then they will have to elect a majority of representatives who are willing to vote as such, whatever the subject may be. I just don't want to see anyone sidestepping the proper channels to attain their agendas (ie: executive orders and midnight legislation).