B-Man Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 ´If that young man thought he was going to divide this country he miserably failed´: Thousands unite and sing We Shall Overcome atCharleston prayer vigilAssociated Press Original Article
NoSaint Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 His manifesto is still online.... Not that interesting a read but I suppose a part of the story at this point. http://lastrhodesian.com
IDBillzFan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 If you don't know this is true, I feel incredibly sorry for you. Do I think a change in gun laws is going to be the immediate remedy? No. It will take a change in culture that will take longer than you or I will be around to see realized. But why not start now? Countries that have always had decent gun control measures do not see the gun-related crimes, injuries or deaths that the U.S. does. It's statistically proven. No matter what Rush tells you. It's true. Why everyone doesn't long for more peace and less violent deaths is beyond me. But yeah ... go ahead and make it a Barry and me thing. That's just brilliant. Way to keep the conversation mature and civil. I realize that difficult times like these make many people want to blame something stupid, like a gun or a flag, for what happened, because simple people need to blame something simple. Don't be that person. You're falling for the president's standard tap dancing on the thin line between imply and infer. He didn't say this type of "gun violence" doesn't happen in other advanced countries. He said this type of "mass violence." You'd have to ignore the news completely to think we lead the world in mass violence. There is nothing immature or uncivil in pointing out this simple fact. I do apologize for calling you stupid. Lastly, it may seem blasphemous to many from the Buffalo/Rochester area, I have never intentionally listened to Rush because I never liked their music.
Rob's House Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 ´If that young man thought he was going to divide this country he miserably failed´: Thousands unite and sing We Shall Overcome at Charleston prayer vigil Associated Press Original Article I don't know about that. This is being used as a catalyst for the "dialogue on race" we're so often told we need to have. I haven't seen this much open hostility towards white people as a race in some time - it's taking place on a national stage and it's all due to the acts of one guy. If he was trying to stir up racial strife I'd say he's been wildly successful.
blzrul Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 The families of the victims have set forth the example of what it means to be Christian. When someone wrongs you, you forgive. You don't judge. You don't use Jesus as a sledge to force people to see things your way, or act as you think they should.
Gugny Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I realize that difficult times like these make many people want to blame something stupid, like a gun or a flag, for what happened, because simple people need to blame something simple. Don't be that person. You're falling for the president's standard tap dancing on the thin line between imply and infer. He didn't say this type of "gun violence" doesn't happen in other advanced countries. He said this type of "mass violence." You'd have to ignore the news completely to think we lead the world in mass violence. There is nothing immature or uncivil in pointing out this simple fact. I do apologize for calling you stupid. Lastly, it may seem blasphemous to many from the Buffalo/Rochester area, I have never intentionally listened to Rush because I never liked their music. Nothing that's ever come out of President Obama's mouth has ever determined my stance on any topic. My stances come from me and only me. I'm also not saying that "the gun" is to blame for the crimes; bad people do bad things. I get it. But so do good people who have psychological disorders. Guns make it easier to kill. It's too easy to get guns. It needs to be more difficult and the screening process needs to be better. This is not an anti-2nd Am. stance, either. I'm all for it, actually. But there needs to be more in place to keep the arms out of the hands of people who are likely to use them for something bad. And I'm taking my son to see Rush in Montreal tomorrow, incidentally. (the Rush NOT hopped up on oxys)
Rob's House Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 If you don't know this is true, I feel incredibly sorry for you. Do I think a change in gun laws is going to be the immediate remedy? No. It will take a change in culture that will take longer than you or I will be around to see realized. But why not start now? Countries that have always had decent gun control measures do not see the gun-related crimes, injuries or deaths that the U.S. does. It's statistically proven. No matter what Rush tells you. It's true. Why everyone doesn't long for more peace and less violent deaths is beyond me. But yeah ... go ahead and make it a Barry and me thing. That's just brilliant. Way to keep the conversation mature and civil. Most of the statistics that "prove" this are manipulated and misleading. This is a fairly informative piece that discusses the issue in a little more depth: http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% duri ng the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S. Nothing that's ever come out of President Obama's mouth has ever determined my stance on any topic. My stances come from me and only me. I'm also not saying that "the gun" is to blame for the crimes; bad people do bad things. I get it. But so do good people who have psychological disorders. Guns make it easier to kill. It's too easy to get guns. It needs to be more difficult and the screening process needs to be better. This is not an anti-2nd Am. stance, either. I'm all for it, actually. But there needs to be more in place to keep the arms out of the hands of people who are likely to use them for something bad. And I'm taking my son to see Rush in Montreal tomorrow, incidentally. (the Rush NOT hopped up on oxys) Stay classy
Gugny Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Most of the statistics that "prove" this are manipulated and misleading. This is a fairly informative piece that discusses the issue in a little more depth: http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm Stay classy Oh, I am. There is nothing unclassy in pointing out this simple fact.
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I have never intentionally listened to Rush because I never liked their music. I keeel you Molon Labe
B-Man Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Oh, I am. There is nothing unclassy in pointing out this simple fact. No. a fact would have been..............The Rush who was hopped up on oxys in 2003 but hey, your way is still classy, if you simply want to throw out gossip as facts . Edited June 20, 2015 by B-Man
Rob's House Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Oh, I am. There is nothing unclassy in pointing out this simple fact. You seem to harbor a lot of hatred for a man you don't know, and seem to know very little about, because you disagree with his politics. Edited June 20, 2015 by Rob's House
Gugny Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 You seem to harbor a lot of hatred for a man you don't know, and seem to know very little about, because you disagree with his politics. Actually, I grew up on Rush Limbaugh. As a teen, I listened, I watched, I read ... all of it. My friend taped every episode of his show on his VCR and we, and a small group of our other friends, would watch and discuss. The same friend's father would drive us to attend John Birch Society meetings with him. I subscribed to the National Review, too. Not a word of a lie, there. None of it. I thought Pat Buchanan would make a great president back then. I was about as far right as one could be. Then I matured. I know quite a bit about Rush Limbaugh. Likely more than you (I know ... hard to believe). He's a hypocrite. He's a racist. He hates everything that is not white, rich and greedy. He is not a good person in any way, shape or form. But I don't hate him. I pity him. I used to be filled with that much hatred and bigotry, but by my late 20s, I realized how wrong it was. Not only does he not know (or care) how wrong it is, he spreads it to anyone dumb enough to listen to him. I feel sorry for those sheeple, too. But I don't hate. I certainly don't dislike anyone with whom I have different political ideologies. I respect everyone's views, as long as they are their true beliefs and they're not just "believing" in what they're told to. I'll never call someone stupid for believing in something different than what I believe in. That's what conversations and spirited debates are for. That's good communication. Rush Limbaugh doesn't engage in healthy debates or conversations. He simply hates everything that doesn't fit into his sick, twisted, bigoted, !@#$ed up world. So yeah ... I have no respect for him and I think he's just a rich, white version of everyone he likes to tear down. And I know plenty about who he is an what he represents - through first-hand experience.
Acantha Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 This is not an anti-2nd Am. stance, either. I'm all for it, actually. But there needs to be more in place to keep the arms out of the hands of people who are likely to use them for something bad. This is exactly anti-second amendment. I don't understand why people who are anti-gun try to dance around the issue. If you feel strongly about limiting who can have guns, the argument should be to amend the constitution. Make it a national discussion and try to get it changed. Don't hide behind an overwhelming false "interpretation" of the second amendment.
KD in CA Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I respect everyone's views, as long as they are their true beliefs and they're not just "believing" in what they're told to. That describes at least 90% of the voting public. People consider themselves informed because they watch/read Fox News, Jon Stewart or the Huffington Post.
The Dean Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) This is exactly anti-second amendment. I don't understand why people who are anti-gun try to dance around the issue. If you feel strongly about limiting who can have guns, the argument should be to amend the constitution. Make it a national discussion and try to get it changed. Don't hide behind an overwhelming false "interpretation" of the second amendment. We limit free speech all the time without amending the constitution. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment in order to stop slander, libel and/or deceptive commercial claims? I've said this before (to some criticism) any defense of the 2nd amendment with no limits, should allow me to have a nuclear weapon. If you don't agree with that statement, then you already believe in imitations. Edited June 20, 2015 by The Dean
Acantha Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 We limit free speech all the time without amending the constitution. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment in order to stop slander, libel and/or deceptive commercial claims? Yes.
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 I certainly don't dislike anyone with whom I have different political ideologies. I respect everyone's views, as long as they are their true beliefs and they're not just "believing" in what they're told to. The weakest cop-out I've ever heard. It lets you dismiss any opinion you don't think is correct with "You just heard that from so-and-so."
The Dean Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Yes. You should beat that drum for awhile, then. The Constitution is a living document, subject to reasonable interpretation. Words are used to convey meaning and ideas, within the context of the time they are used. I have the same issue with people who believe the bible is literal truth.
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 We limit free speech all the time without amending the constitution. Do you think we need a constitutional amendment in order to stop slander, libel and/or deceptive commercial claims? The difference is: slander and libel aren't criminalized. They're civil matters. And while limits are placed on free speech beyond that, they are generally for recognized issues of public safety - e.g. you're free to yell "Fire!" all you want...except in a public theater where there's no fire in an attempt to cause panic. So even restrictions on freedom of speech are recognized as limited and contextual.
Recommended Posts