McLaren Life banner

281 - 296 of 296 Posts

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,008 Posts
Until one of your kids goes to school and is shot.
Not that youd see it in your media. The BBC is a joke. But, believe it or not. Most of people in the Texas school that got shot up, including the students, were all still very much pro gun. And a huge number of the people in the florida shootings are still very pro gun. You dont see it, because those in the news dont want you to see it. They have a narrative.

https://www.guns.com/news/2018/06/05/pro-gun-texas-students-write-governor-to-protect-second-amendment-rights

As for not being able to defend yourself, sure, according to the BBC I'm sure that's what you believe. Back in reality, there are huge numbers of people fully defending themselves, particularly in regions where cops would take 30 minutes or more to respond, that's important.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/08/four-burglars-break-in-shot/
https://www.newsweek.com/houston-man-shoots-dead-three-people-trying-break-home-1298479
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.html

There are endless such occasions where competent gun owners dissuade and/or otherwise succeed at removing the threat of home invaders. That some are unable shouldn't stop those that are. Governance by lowest common denominator is just s slippery slope to communism IMO. YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,950 Posts
Almost every bad guy with a gun is stopped by someone else with a gun. Perhaps a shot is not fired to end the situation or he killed himself.

Even on youtube u can watch good guys with a gun stopping a bad guy. Its the whole reason police are armed here, and even some carry a rifle on their motorcycle/car.

In the EU I see multiple uniformed police/soldier with weapons, both pistol/rifles defending/patrolling train stations and airports?

Its funny that everyone thinks the military or general police are good marksman/women. Its absolutely not true. Any civilian who trains and competes in shooting sports can be better. The soldier and police generally just need to qualify, and if its not their hobby then its just "part of work"
Firstkill, sorry I should have been more precise.

I meant it’s rare you see a citizen taking down a criminal in an armed encounter. The stats don’t appear to be bare that out.

I would agree with your statement that general police would not be too much better than civilians. I get comfort from the fact that in Europe the guys that you yourself have seen that are armed are at an advantage. They are extensively trained both in weapons but also situational awareness. They still freeze sometimes too of course I would guess. But normally they are at an advantage.

My personal view is it is far better to have a number of highly trained people who will approach a situation with some confidence rather than fear . They are the law and as such are given the means to deal with situations. Rather than hoping the armament they are allowed by law to keep at home is superior to that which is outside. How are you ever going to be confident in that situation as a single citizen ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,950 Posts
Not that youd see it in your media. The BBC is a joke. But, believe it or not. Most of people in the Texas school that got shot up, including the students, were all still very much pro gun. And a huge number of the people in the florida shootings are still very pro gun. You dont see it, because those in the news dont want you to see it. They have a narrative.

https://www.guns.com/news/2018/06/05/pro-gun-texas-students-write-governor-to-protect-second-amendment-rights

As for not being able to defend yourself, sure, according to the BBC I'm sure that's what you believe. Back in reality, there are huge numbers of people fully defending themselves, particularly in regions where cops would take 30 minutes or more to respond, that's important.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/08/four-burglars-break-in-shot/
https://www.newsweek.com/houston-man-shoots-dead-three-people-trying-break-home-1298479
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212474004.html

There are endless such occasions where competent gun owners dissuade and/or otherwise succeed at removing the threat of home invaders. That some are unable shouldn't stop those that are. Governance by lowest common denominator is just s slippery slope to communism IMO. YMMV.
Like I said previously Zombie, best of luck with the odds. Lets hope the one time it’s your number up you perform perfectly and the other dude is just a mindless chump waving a pistol. Lets hope he’s not been schooled by the commies and knows far more than you do anyway.

It’s true after the Florida incident there was more weight given to the kids demanding change in Washington. I surely don’t remember seeing any of the guys or gals involved saying yeah I just got shot at today but without guns it would be much worse.

We often have guys from the NRA on the news over here, although to be honest I watch a broad section of the US media as well as other US stuff. They blithely trot out the good guy beats the bad guy line and rarely have anything fresh to say as they struggle for any kind of real world justification to balance out th fact that America has lost another number of innocent and often young people.

I do think the BBC does a decent job though. Not perfect for sure. I guess that’s why I try and read or watch as broad a cross section as possible. I find the left wing press in Europe laughable, but much like this thread I find it important to understand why those that do not share the same view as me hold their views. Channel 4 news is good journalism, but it’s socialist leanings are a little bit geating at times. Their Washington reporter truly hates trump, not perhaps like CNN does, but it’s kinda fun to watch as the impartiality which is supposed to pervade their reporting drops so specactularly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,215 Posts
You know, this, this is a very fair statement. It, IMO, is the heart of all arguments on this topic.

We have 35,000 or so auto deaths in the US every year. That is the price we pay for the freedom of movement, the efficiency of commerce, and many other benefits brought by automotive mobility. It is CLEAR, statistically, if we reduced the speed limits to say 10mph nationally, the number of deaths would go down to maybe 5% of the current total. which would still be around say 2000 deaths a year. Some would scream, that's too much for the deaths to the immoral automotive complex. Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are wrong. If they reduce the speed limit to say 1mph, some idiots would still find a way to kill themselves. Heck, even if we banned using cars for locomotion, in the US in particular, I'm sure some idiot would still find some way to kill themselves. Not ironically, suicide in parked cars in garages account for a terribly not insignificant number of deaths, for example.

But most people in the US and abroad, simply do not give a f***. The price of 35000 deaths a year is a "good deal" for the liberties and benefits afforded by the automobile. It's crass, but that is the reality.

For those that value the freedom afforded of SCARING THE GOVERNMENT that tyranny will be met with armed resistence, the bottom line is, the number of (granted horrible) deaths, meh, it's just the cost of that freedom. For others, they will say that is nuts. Fair minded and good folks can disagree about these things. The way to do it is with your votes.

Two cavaets/notes. First, please spare me that "no one is talking about getting rid of all guns". At least have the courage to call it what it is, yes, that is what a substantial portion of the left wants to do, and they will do it by slippery slope. In "theory" you can have a gun in NYC, in reality, no one does because it's so burdensome. Like driving with a speed limit of 10mph, at a certain point, the restrictions are so onerous as to make for an effective ban.

Second, because of the disingenuous politics of "no one is talking about getting rid of all guns" the folks on the right do not want to give an inch. The two sides are both full of f***ing liars. The left, rightly, is afraid of the right "we're just talking about late term abortion, not banning all abortion" for the same reason, they have good reason to believe eventually the right wants to ban abortions completely (just look at Texas and the restriction caused reduction of abortion clinics to such a degree you basically had only one or two choices, and more realistically had to leave the state to get one). And because both sides are full of scum disingenuous double speak pieces of s*** that cannot negotiate in good faith, you get these polarization positions taken. Because the reality is the populace is reasonable. You could have some reasonable gun control laws, and some reasonable placement of former marines and cops at schools and most of the population would be cool with that. You could have consistent abortion laws like first 3 months it's abortions R us on every corner, months 4-6 only for reasons of health of the mom/child, and months 7-9 (you gotta be kidding not taking care of it by now), tough luck, you're giving birth and you can put the kid up for adoption or something. Would something like those 2 things be a universal solution everyone is happy with? Nope. But it would be a reasoned solution that most could be ok living with.

But you can never have that happen. Because people are scum. And also, both political parties are disingenuous bastard blocks of scum that want to keep power through divide and conquer. Furthermore, just like people do not want to slaughter their own beef, but love them some hamburgers, people do not want to fess up to "im cool with 35000 people dying ever year at the price of my freedom of movement for this car" and similarly, "Im cool with 30000 people dying every year for the price of freedom from tyranny that guns give me". You cannot have honest conversations because people dont even want to be honest with themselves about these things.
That's a very fair post as well I think.

It's very unfortunate that the extremes on both ends get to dominate the news/headlines/discussion in general about well everything while actually there are good reasons for both sides of the debate for taking the positions they do. Although I personally think some form of firearms registration is reasonable and perhaps desirable, the US seems to be happy with the way things are. Or at least there isn't enough of a majority to force through any kind of constitutional changes and as such the finger wagging from Europe/other places is unnecessary and indeed hypocritical. In the same way for example as you point out wrt to traffic laws, germany allows for unlimited speed limits on autobahns at the cost of a certain number of lives which a lower speed limit would prevent and thinks it's acceptable. It's the choice the US has taken for now and they have every right to do so. Perhaps that changes in time, perhaps not. but it's up to the US as a whole to decide really.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Fair point on the point of the forum, but once again it fails the (implicit) fallacy of false dichotomy. It's not either or. Either I want to hear all your stuff about everything or none of it. At any given time anyone is free to point out, I'm not terribly interested to hear your point about that. I have exercised that option. :D

As for your guilt by association, thanks for giving jesus a break! Letting him get off the cross because there's only enough room for you up there, you poor poor suffering soul. Um yea, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't care what the duck has to say about it.

With regard to amendment, I noted that it has been amended where needed and I agree it's a great part of the structure itself and makes the structure fantastic. And it's where, I'll note, all you got to say about it is noise. Go get the votes.

Also, I am enjoying the deafening silence on your "moral validity". :D
I suspect that I am not the only one here who has trouble decoding your metaphors and allusions in order to work out what you are trying to say.
In this case (re "moral validity"), I was not aware that you were asking me a question. You made an assertion:
Please spare me on what you think the founding fathers thought. I don't need it. Just know your moralizing is not somehow superior to SmokinV10's reliance of "moral validity" and I know folks from the left are SURE, sure I say, of the moral superiority of your positions, so I'd just like you to think about your throwing around that argument on SmokinV10 when you now are so heavily relying on it yourself.
I replied that I had not speculated on what the Founding Fathers might have thought, but rather I had pointed out what they actually wrote.

Re moral validity, it related to the decisions of the Supreme Court. My point was that, when the party in power makes a blatant but successful effort to tilt the Court in favour of that party's policies, the Court's ensuing rulings start to lose their moral validity. If all nine SC justices are seen to be neutral and objective, then a ruling that upheld the applicability of the 2nd Amendment (for example) would carry a lot more weight than if the majority of justices were chosen by Bush 43 and Trump according to their pre-determined policy preferences. (Incidentally, in the post to which you were referring, I gave more examples of how Democrats had wrongly torpedoed Republican nominees than I did the reverse.)

I think we agree that the left are convinced a priori that they occupy the moral high ground, and thus, they presume, the ends always justify their often deadly, destructive and depraved means.
This sickening attitude vitiates much of what the extreme left says, although the fact that their arguments can be totally wrong does not necessarily mean that the extreme right's counter-arguments are themselves always flawless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Firstkill, sorry I should have been more precise.

I meant it’s rare you see a citizen taking down a criminal in an armed encounter. The stats don’t appear to be bare that out.

I would agree with your statement that general police would not be too much better than civilians. I get comfort from the fact that in Europe the guys that you yourself have seen that are armed are at an advantage. They are extensively trained both in weapons but also situational awareness. They still freeze sometimes too of course I would guess. But normally they are at an advantage.

My personal view is it is far better to have a number of highly trained people who will approach a situation with some confidence rather than fear . They are the law and as such are given the means to deal with situations. Rather than hoping the armament they are allowed by law to keep at home is superior to that which is outside. How are you ever going to be confident in that situation as a single citizen ?
I agree. But sometimes highly trained folks are not around. Unfortunately. I don’t live in a gated community with armed guards. So if something bad happens it’s just me and my family.

As for the single citizen. It’s not confidence or anything like that. It’s an absolute last resort. (We are not talking about the idiot vigilantes).

I’ll use my case for specifics. My home defense is a semi auto rifle. (Ar15). With appropriate ammo/set up. I don’t plant to “clear” my home. I plan to gather my family and sit it out in my closet. But that door will be covered until professionals come. I don’t ever “plan” to use it. But it’s there. I also have a fire extinguisher in my car and home. Same thing. Hope to never use them.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,008 Posts
Like I said previously Zombie, best of luck with the odds. Lets hope the one time it’s your number up you perform perfectly and the other dude is just a mindless chump waving a pistol. Lets hope he’s not been schooled by the commies and knows far more than you do anyway.

It’s true after the Florida incident there was more weight given to the kids demanding change in Washington. I surely don’t remember seeing any of the guys or gals involved saying yeah I just got shot at today but without guns it would be much worse.

We often have guys from the NRA on the news over here, although to be honest I watch a broad section of the US media as well as other US stuff. They blithely trot out the good guy beats the bad guy line and rarely have anything fresh to say as they struggle for any kind of real world justification to balance out th fact that America has lost another number of innocent and often young people.

I do think the BBC does a decent job though. Not perfect for sure. I guess that’s why I try and read or watch as broad a cross section as possible. I find the left wing press in Europe laughable, but much like this thread I find it important to understand why those that do not share the same view as me hold their views. Channel 4 news is good journalism, but it’s socialist leanings are a little bit geating at times. Their Washington reporter truly hates trump, not perhaps like CNN does, but it’s kinda fun to watch as the impartiality which is supposed to pervade their reporting drops so specactularly.
The "broad" section of american media right now are at a point where Pravda would be an upgrade.

As for not hearing those students that were shot, yea, of course, the media bury's that. Here's one report. The bewildered look of the liver reporters doing interviews down there with students that are still pro 2A despite JUST HAVING BEEN SHOT AT (yea cool time to bring up politics comrad NBC):

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/we-just-have-heal-different-way-santa-fe-parkland-diverge-n876416
“I don’t think guns are the problem — I think people are the problem,” Carvey, 16, a student at Santa Fe High School, said. “Even if we did more gun laws, people who are sick enough to do something like this are still going to figure out a way to do it. So it doesn’t matter.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/02/students-hold-walkouts-support-second-amendment/573420002/

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17207458/parkland-kyle-kashuv-ben-shapiro-david-hogg-guns-parkland-fox

At least a couple of the students shot in Texas came out later pro 2nd amendment. You just dont hear about it because our news organizations at this point are two factions of high school students with slam books. It's pathetic. At this point I dont believe anything in the news unless I see a full uneditied video that has plenty of pre and post 'incident' video, and even then I weary. As always, YMMV.

Don't get me wrong. First, the statistics piece is a fair point, and your view is a fair view. I don't think you fully get the american psyche on this, but so what, it's always good to get an outside voice/view.

That said, statistically, people that regularly drive over 150mph tend to die, yet I don't see you giving up on racing. That the unwashed masses cannot handle that speed doesnt stop you. Tyranny of the lowest-common-denominator is something I abhor, and is a culturally very anti-american thing, and more a socialist thing. That people have that view, fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

As for the BBC, jesus, beyond them being left of Che Guevara by US standards, they are abysmal in understanding and reporting on american politics. Besides being wrong on trump winning (so was much of our degenerate press), they have basic misunderstandings about how the mechanical operations of american govt works, much less the nuance of our politics. I watch it and cringe. Honestly, 5 year olds giving book reports in the US get less wrong about how american govt works.

Here is one example, BBC HONESTLY They regularly report that the 2nd amendment will get repealed when you need 3/4 of the states to ratify it. So 38 states when the map looks like this:



It's so astoundingly stupid and naive as to be painful. They put this crap through because some lefty lunatic told them, and they didnt do the most basic of checking on how outlandish moronic this stuff is. I should not throw stones only at the BBC, albeit they are a level worse than even our degenerate press about our political affairs, because our garbage does equally lunatic misrepresentations reports (admittedly) both on the left (currently worse) and the right.

To be fair, I suspect american reporting on the UK may be couple of orders magnitude more ignorant on government machinations than vice versa.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,008 Posts
You prefer Fox news - now that's funny.
First, go f yourself mr funny man. Second, yea for somethings I do. For some things I prefer BBC (just not on american politics as they are wholey ignorant). For yet other things I prefer MSNBC. They all have biases, and are more adept at some things.

That said, I will cop to what you're pushing at. Right now fox, deplorable slanted sack of crap that it is, is better than the rest of the US lefty press in particular at politics.

What may surprise you is, I HATE fox. If you think I'm a raving stark lunatic now, you should have heard me during the idiot Bush Jr years. Fox is scum. But the lefty press has blast by them in the left lane and again, these days, Pravda would be an upgrade to any of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,950 Posts
I agree. But sometimes highly trained folks are not around. Unfortunately. I don’t live in a gated community with armed guards. So if something bad happens it’s just me and my family.

As for the single citizen. It’s not confidence or anything like that. It’s an absolute last resort. (We are not talking about the idiot vigilantes).

I’ll use my case for specifics. My home defense is a semi auto rifle. (Ar15). With appropriate ammo/set up. I don’t plant to “clear” my home. I plan to gather my family and sit it out in my closet. But that door will be covered until professionals come. I don’t ever “plan” to use it. But it’s there. I also have a fire extinguisher in my car and home. Same thing. Hope to never use them.
I would be with you in the closet. 100% certain.

I guess in this part of the world we are fortunate that an intruder is not likely to be armed even if they have some form of offensive weapon. One might expect to have something in the house that one could defend oneself with if absolutely necessary whilst waiting for the authorities to arrive. Equally we like some have panic alarms and the like which in theory or hopefully alert people to our plight without alerting the intruders. The authorities are almost certainly going to have an advantage over the intruder so the situation should be dealt with at that point.

I appreciate that the US is a vast country and that some rural elements would feel very exposed if they were not able to defend themselves. One assumes response times might even be in the hours?. This is why in my view a total gun ban might never be appropriate. But perhaps the rules on hand guns, open carry and the like in urban areas deserve another look.

Despite the current political difficulties, perhaps across the majority of the Western Hemisphere, it would seem that a lot of the people outside of the United States believe that the system of democracy in the US is significantly more solid and impregnable than some Us citizens. We had riots in the UK about 10 years ago I think it was. The lasted about 10 days if I remember correctly. Despite the unrest at no point did I believe society itself would break down. Most people value their freedom and tyranny would therefore have very little chance of success. The checks and balances appear too strong to me as an outsider to believe it’s possible in modern America for the government to turn on its people.

By illustration the cause of the riots in the UK was the killing of a man by police as he was in possession of a firearm or at least alleged to have been.
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,008 Posts
Re moral validity, it related to the decisions of the Supreme Court. My point was that, when the party in power makes a blatant but successful effort to tilt the Court in favour of that party's policies, the Court's ensuing rulings start to lose their moral validity. If all nine SC justices are seen to be neutral and objective, then a ruling that upheld the applicability of the 2nd Amendment (for example) would carry a lot more weight than if the majority of justices were chosen by Bush 43 and Trump according to their pre-determined policy preferences. (Incidentally, in the post to which you were referring, I gave more examples of how Democrats had wrongly torpedoed Republican nominees than I did the reverse.)

I think we agree that the left are convinced a priori that they occupy the moral high ground, and thus, they presume, the ends always justify their often deadly, destructive and depraved means.
This sickening attitude vitiates much of what the extreme left says, although the fact that their arguments can be totally wrong does not necessarily mean that the extreme right's counter-arguments are themselves always flawless.
Says you. The political tilt is part of the process. The moral validity never existed. It's always been a seesaw but one we must put up with. Some view it as adding to the validity in that at least you get opposing views working together to build towards a judgement.

That said, do not even get me started about the idiots on the supreme court. That at one point "separate but equal" was a judgement we had to live with points out there is no moral validity to any of it.

It's simply is the law of the land. Both for good and many ways bad. The actual moral validity is we accept these idiots will make mistakes, but nevertheless it IS THE LAW OF THE LAND that we abide by, and use the law of the land, to change (eg the civil rights laws over riding such idiocy). The moral validity of it is in the STRUCTURE, that we do have a supreme court and we all agree to abide by it, even when we disagree with it. That the legislature can and does overrule stupid supreme court rulings. That they all act as check and balances. That we amended out stupid and bad decisions of the founders, of the supreme court, of the legislature. The structure of it all tends to allow refinement and working towards a more perfect (yet still highly imperfect) union.

That you cast aspersions questioning the moral validity because you dont like the left/right seesaw of the court, IMO, is ironic as it relies on your own moral castigations against it. All this stuff, all our views, are based somewhere, on our moral views. Your criticism of the structure is based on yours. The founding fathers used their moral view to setup a structure, IMO, tends towards self correction, despite being full of morally deplorable people, and in fact, in anticipation knowing that is nature of people.

I suspect we are not far apart on some of our views here. But, Id rather have morally dubious people in a structure working against them, than having some 'perfect' person picking 'magically objective' people, that in reality, do not exist. Your moral view says that moral validity in the structure is misplaced, yet reliance against it has it's own problems with 'moral validity'. As always, YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
You are conflating what some are saying 'some form of regulation/registration' as being the same as calling for a 'full out ban'. That simply isn't the case. Perhaps you disagree but I think it would be hard to argue that some form of regulation to change the current pretty much complete ease of availability of firearms would reduce the number of people who are shot in larger scale random shootings. Of course it would not stop the crazies/psychotic/criminals as you correctly point out those people would be able to get firearms somehow but reduction of availability will imo mean at least some of the random mass shootings are less serious.

It's a sliding scale of how much restrictions to be put down (say firearm type etc) vs how many people less get shot and what society as a whole determines is reasonable. You obviously are on one end that believes unhindered firearm rights are worth X (I don't know how many that might be) more people getting shot a year but is it that hard to see why some people (with good reason and without being screaming liberal lefties) believe that society being somewhere lower on that scale is also worth it? And I say this as someone who believes the UK did overreact by insisting on a complete handgun ban after 1996.
I live in California a state that has very strict and arbitrary gun rules/law. They pass rules with no knowledge of what they really mean. But it scores political points because something was passed.

The sliding scale you speak of. I don’t personally think it can exist as people will find some way around it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
I live in California a state that has very strict and arbitrary gun rules/law. They pass rules with no knowledge of what they really mean. But it scores political points because something was passed.

The sliding scale you speak of. I don’t personally think it can exist as people will find some way around it.
..California (I enjoy it for various reasons, but oh man) is a special place...I do enjoy being reminded that everything is going to give me cancer too. :laugh:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Says you. The political tilt is part of the process. The moral validity never existed. It's always been a seesaw but one we must put up with. Some view it as adding to the validity in that at least you get opposing views working together to build towards a judgement.

That said, do not even get me started about the idiots on the supreme court. That at one point "separate but equal" was a judgement we had to live with points out there is no moral validity to any of it.

It's simply is the law of the land. Both for good and many ways bad. The actual moral validity is we accept these idiots will make mistakes, but nevertheless it IS THE LAW OF THE LAND that we abide by, and use the law of the land, to change (eg the civil rights laws over riding such idiocy). The moral validity of it is in the STRUCTURE, that we do have a supreme court and we all agree to abide by it, even when we disagree with it. That the legislature can and does overrule stupid supreme court rulings. That they all act as check and balances. That we amended out stupid and bad decisions of the founders, of the supreme court, of the legislature. The structure of it all tends to allow refinement and working towards a more perfect (yet still highly imperfect) union.

That you cast aspersions questioning the moral validity because you dont like the left/right seesaw of the court, IMO, is ironic as it relies on your own moral castigations against it. All this stuff, all our views, are based somewhere, on our moral views. Your criticism of the structure is based on yours. The founding fathers used their moral view to setup a structure, IMO, tends towards self correction, despite being full of morally deplorable people, and in fact, in anticipation knowing that is nature of people.

I suspect we are not far apart on some of our views here. But, Id rather have morally dubious people in a structure working against them, than having some 'perfect' person picking 'magically objective' people, that in reality, do not exist. Your moral view says that moral validity in the structure is misplaced, yet reliance against it has it's own problems with 'moral validity'. As always, YMMV.
Fair enough, but the position asserted or suggested above by someone else was, in essence, that the Constitution was right because it was the Constitution, not a temporal document. That was what I was disputing.
Agreed that part of the greatness of the US structure is its checks-and-balances that tend (or at least so far have tended) to self-correct over time. Nonetheless one is entitled to lament partisan attempts to pervert its course.
Each of us is a prisoner of his or her own subjectivity, but that does not mean that all of us are equally wrong. :)
 

·
2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
8,008 Posts
Fair enough, but the position asserted or suggested above by someone else was, in essence, that the Constitution was right because it was the Constitution, not a temporal document. That was what I was disputing.
Agreed that part of the greatness of the US structure is its checks-and-balances that tend (or at least so far have tended) to self-correct over time. Nonetheless one is entitled to lament partisan attempts to pervert its course.
Each of us is a prisoner of his or her own subjectivity, but that does not mean that all of us are equally wrong. :)
Fair enough as well, but I didn't read it as that. It's not that the constitution itself is infallible or a perfect document, something I don't think anyone here would agree with, but that it was structured in a way that allows for improvement, and as such, is something to be respected.

Agreed, partisans, on all sides, tend to be d***s. :D And agree, we are not all equally wrong, too true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
I would be with you in the closet. 100% certain.

I guess in this part of the world we are fortunate that an intruder is not likely to be armed even if they have some form of offensive weapon. One might expect to have something in the house that one could defend oneself with if absolutely necessary whilst waiting for the authorities to arrive. Equally we like some have panic alarms and the like which in theory or hopefully alert people to our plight without alerting the intruders. The authorities are almost certainly going to have an advantage over the intruder so the situation should be dealt with at that point.

I appreciate that the US is a vast country and that some rural elements would feel very exposed if they were not able to defend themselves. One assumes response times might even be in the hours?. This is why in my view a total gun ban might never be appropriate. But perhaps the rules on hand guns, open carry and the like in urban areas deserve another look.

By illustration the cause of the riots in the UK was the killing of a man by police as he was in possession of a firearm or at least alleged to have been.
Baseball bat. Golf club. Knife. All will be staring down the barrel of my gun. If they meant harm any weapon is better then fist. If they just wanted property. No problem to wait it out. 2-5 min is a long time for a violent offense.

For the UK. Riots. I mean we are on a mclaren form. We are not the “average” citizen living where the riots are. I doubt the locals felt “safe”.

We had them in downtown Los Angeles/poor areas of Los Angeles
In the 90s for police brutality. Doubt Beverly Hills even notice.
 
281 - 296 of 296 Posts
About this Discussion
295 Replies
23 Participants
Firstkill
McLaren Life
McLaren Life is the best McLaren forum to discuss reliability, problems & more for supercar models like the F1, P1, 570, 650, 12C, and 720S!
Full Forum Listing
Top