Nation's mayors express frustration over gun control at Indianapolis conference

[2A_Tom]

Victims, sheesh.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Victims, sheesh.

Historical ignorance, sheeshes

 

[Woobie]

I said no such thing. I made a factual statement, and then for some reason there's this concerted attempt to make my statement about slavery. Maybe I'm giving people way more credit than I should concerning Constitution, and knowing that certain groups beyond slaves weren't able to fully recognize their rights. I mean seriously, is this an honest question?

Definitely true. My problem with the statement was that it made the founders seem monolithic on this. A great number were willing to compromise on these types of issues in order to see through the foundation of the Union. And they put in place the mechanisms to remove these injustices from our code.

Lets not forget that these men lived in a time with a different culture, one with what today would be considered glaring injustices. A quarter of a millennium from now, I dare say people will look upon our "evolved" thinking and wonder how we could have thought the way we do. They got some things right, as well, that we have since shrugged off in favor of less noble ideals.

Also, people aren't necessarily stupid or uneducated because they don't understand the way you communicate something in a hastily typed post on an Internet forum. I've seen a whole platoon fail to grasp a concept a leader is trying to teach, and in failing to do so, draw the ire of their senior. If 30 grown men, deemed capable of learning and fully trained by the Army don't understand you, maybe the problem is not with the 30.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Definitely true. My problem with the statement was that it made the founders seem monolithic on this. A great number were willing to compromise on these types of issues in order to see through the foundation of the Union. And they put in place the mechanisms to remove these injustices from our code.

Lets not forget that these men lived in a time with a different culture, one with what today would be considered glaring injustices. A quarter of a millennium from now, I dare say people will look upon our "evolved" thinking and wonder how we could have thought the way we do. They got some things right, as well, that we have since shrugged off in favor of less noble ideals.

Also, people aren't necessarily stupid or uneducated because they don't understand the way you communicate something in a hastily typed post on an Internet forum. I've seen a whole platoon fail to grasp a concept a leader is trying to teach, and in failing to do so, draw the ire of their senior. If 30 grown men, deemed capable of learning and fully trained by the Army don't understand you, maybe the problem is not with the 30.

I myself, have said as much. They did that horrible thing, and compromised. That doesn't make them evil, that does not make any less enlightened, it makes them practical. If they were members of INGO, they would've been run off a long time ago.

 

[Woobie]

I myself, have said as much. They did that horrible thing, and compromised. That doesn't make them evil, that does not make any less enlightened, it makes them practical. If they were members of INGO, they would've been run off a long time ago.

Youre probably right about that.

 

[2A_Tom]

Historical ignorance, sheeshes

Ignorance of what specifically, everyone that responds to you is met with "I didn't say that". So according to you they can't read your mind or make inference of your non statements.

Bait and switch.

No one can talk civilally to you because you make vague statements and then call others ignorant.

Ignorant of what specifically. Does someone have to enumerate every possible grievance you could possibly have. Maybe you are smarter than everyone else here. Maybe you should be on the mensa site discussing politics and guns they would probably agree with you on disarming folks and even supply the white guilt you seem to be seeking.

Well I feel absolutly no white guilt so don't expect any from me.

I expect no more than a derisive comment from you, as you very seldom actually answer the questions asked of you.

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;DohRa9lsx0Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ignorance of what specifically, everyone that responds to you is met with "I didn't say that". So according to you they can't read your mind or make inference of your non statements.

Bait and switch.

You specifically, are ignorant of the groups of people that weren't considered "full" citizens upon the passing of the Constitution. Even in schools of questionable competence, I'd imagine that this was addressed in 7th grade civics. If you haven't a clue, don't double down in your ignorance, and attempt to make this a racial issue.

No one can talk civilally to you because you make vague statements and then call others ignorant.

I call those that make an assumption, devoid of a coherent argument, ignorant.

Ignorant of what specifically. Does someone have to enumerate every possible grievance you could possibly have. Maybe you are smarter than everyone else here. Maybe you should be on the mensa site discussing politics and guns they would probably agree with you on disarming folks and even supply the white guilt you seem to be seeking.

I challenge you, or any other person, to make the case that my posts in this thread are intended to inspire admissions of "white guilt." It's comments like this are rife with ignorance.

Well I feel absolutly no white guilt so don't expect any from me.

I expect no more than a derisive comment from you, as you very seldom actually answer the questions asked of you.

You know, I could care less how much guilt you have, nor whether it's determined by the amount of melanin in your skin. You can play the victim card, and "white guilt" yourself backwards, forwards, and sideways. If you want some sort of reparations from me, I'm sorry, but that just ain't gonna happen. Take it up with Trump.

 

[churchmouse]

Just looking in to see how things are going....................

 

[churchmouse]

They are not going that well..................

 

[churchmouse]

As I am on Vacation and waiting my turn in the shower this may take some time.................

 

[churchmouse]

Keep it in check fellas.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They are not going that well..................

lol...

 

[churchmouse]

lol...

 

[Woobie]

Keep it in check fellas.

Well it was clear early on that the republican mayors suck, the democrat mayors suck, Joe Hogsett sucks, Hillary sucks, Lady Gaga sucks, and Lady Gaga's music sucks. So we had to turn the conversation to more interesting and controversial topics.

Also, hope you're having fun. Hope the water is hot by the time you get your turn in the shower.

 

[rhino]

I am frustrated that the mayors are frustrated over gun control.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I said no such thing. I made a factual statement, and then for some reason there's this concerted attempt to make my statement about slavery. Maybe I'm giving people way more credit than I should concerning Constitution, and knowing that certain groups beyond slaves weren't able to fully recognize their rights. I mean seriously, is this an honest question?

Yes, it's an honest question.

I named at least three groups. You "addressed that particular facet" with one I named. Someone else brought up women (as a group who were disenfranchised) after I'd done so. The Native Americans were mentioned at least twice in this thread.
In a response to me, you said you "weren't going to name the group of whom you were speaking" (not a direct quote). When women were mentioned, you said the person "didn't know his history".

You're coming across very poorly, and that's the best way I can say that without it sounding like I'm insulting you. Your tone seems condescending and I'm obviously not the only one to think so.

I've tried to engage you in conversation. I've tried to discuss this as an adult, with another adult. I'm not fond of being talked down to, and I don't know anyone else who is, either. If that's not your intention, your method of demonstrating that is ineffective.

Getting back to the root of the discussion, OK, I'll grant you that the carry of a firearm or other weapon in an area where prisoners or the forensic mentally ill have direct access to the person doing so is unwise. I'll even grant that maybe that can be appropriately forbidden by law. (not that the law disallowing firearms or other weapons has ever made any prison "safe"; what exactly is a shiv, again, and what kind of background check controls access to them?) I still maintain, however, that the person doing so should have some form of protection from those who would do him harm, and that those responsible for his safety should be facing dire consequences for failure.

As to other places where guns should be forbidden, especially by law, I disagree with your stated opinions for the reasons I've given. Government officials SHOULD be afraid of p***ing off the people who employ them, and should not have the benefit of protection details at the expense of people that they make every effort to deny that same level of protection to. If there is some valid reason to disarm the people, then the same conditions I stated before should apply (one paragraph up)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, it's an honest question.

I named at least three groups. You "addressed that particular facet" with one I named. Someone else brought up women (as a group who were disenfranchised) after I'd done so. The Native Americans were mentioned at least twice in this thread.
In a response to me, you said you "weren't going to name the group of whom you were speaking" (not a direct quote). When women were mentioned, you said the person "didn't know his history".

Your chronology is off. I hope it is because you didn't remember correctly, rather than it being a purposeful attempt to support your narrative. I said, before anyone mention a single group,

Post #35

I wasnt going to specify who I referring, because it encompassed a much larger group, than just slaves.

At post #41 you say:

In our Founders' time, the others would have been the indigenous "Indians", Black people, women, and probably many other groups I'm not naming because I've made enough of a point with those.

So, I'll harken back to my original statement that started this whole thing:

Post #31

It could be legitimately argued that there was "except for" clause inferred in those words. And that those "unalienable rights," we're alienable depending on who you are, and to reference your thoughts from another thread, create a class of nobility.... and I'll also point out, that these words were put on parchment by the Founders/Framers.

It would appear that my original words are not only valid, but supported by your own. Tell me where I am wrong in this?

You're coming across very poorly, and that's the best way I can say that without it sounding like I'm insulting you. Your tone seems condescending and I'm obviously not the only one to think so.

I've tried to engage you in conversation. I've tried to discuss this as an adult, with another adult. I'm not fond of being talked down to, and I don't know anyone else who is, either. If that's not your intention, your method of demonstrating that is ineffective.

I am being condescending. And purposefully so, as a result of the same behavior being directed originally towards me. I offered the possibility that there were other groups that rights did not wholly apply to upon the creation of our govt. You, eventually name several of those groups I was referring.... but is that where you started?

No, it's not. You, Bug, and Blue Falcon immediately seized upon one subject, the enslavement of blacks, and attempt to cite this as my intent when bringing up the subject about those who did not fully have recognized rights. S

o, I feel fully justified I calling out your blatantly obvious short-sightedness, and I believe it is a fair question to wonder if you and the others came to your original assumption solely because I am black? Had I been white, and made the same statement, would you have just as easily jumped to the same conclusion?... even with you knowing (as you have already proven) that there ARE other groups to which my original statement It could be legitimately argued that there was 'except for' clause inferred in those words. And that those "unalienable rights," were alienable depending on who... that applied.

You'll have a hard time convincing to me that there isn't a bias in the words chosen. So if you felt as if I have been condescending or talked down to, I am only reciprocating.

The merits of my original argument ARE sound... and the ironic part, is the people who have contested it the most have provided the examples.

 

[BugI02]

.

• ​
  
  
  

 

[BugI02]

.