and rarely do I find myself in accord with political Conservative, whether provincial or federal. Today, however, Stockwell Day rejected a Federal ban on handguns
( Read more... )
Usually I resist these types of threads.. but just one thought here.. then I will leave.... I promise
(I figure that you opened this one up for disscussion by posting it publicly anyway)
"The change that is needed is a change toward caring, respect, and consideration of one another - everywhere. "
A ban on the legal possession of a weapon that has only one purpose, that is to do violence to another human being, seems in keeping with care, respect and consideration. If thugs are going to have guns no matter what then crime is not the issue. So what is the issue ? I would say that fostering a culture that, as a general rule, frowns on civilians responding to tense situations with lethal force is.
*as a side.... I am not against private ownership of firearms, I am against private ownership of tools that have as there only purpose to kill and main human beings.
Not wishing to be too cynical, but has there truly been a period when our society actually was a civil society, a respecting society, or a caring society? Most historical periods that I've read about show that our society is, at its heart, a Oligarchy/Plutocracy that camouflages itself with a thin veneer of high ideals and civility. There are always individuals that are caring, good, and civil. As a whole, though, it always seems to me that the greedy, self-serving, arrogant, and even cruel elements are the real forces that drive our society. The Romans used Self Defense as an excuse to steadily and systematically conquer their Empire, and our own society similarly uses high-sounding ideals to excuse our often inhumane actions.
Well, it does seem to be getting worse, rather than better, but that could be an artifact of the "Information Age". I now get instant reports of badness happening around the world. I used to get filtered news, because of distance, cost, difficulty of transmission.
Couple three thingseliskimoJune 3 2007, 13:45:59 UTC
I was interested to discover that the NRA had a military history. It was established in 1871 by a couple Union Army vetrans (a colonel and a general) who had been "dismayed" by the lack of skill shown by the troops under their command. The NRA's only focus until the 1930's was marksmanship and education (gun safety). That sort of puts a different spin behind the words "guns don't kill people
( ... )
Comments 6
(I figure that you opened this one up for disscussion by posting it publicly anyway)
"The change that is needed is a change toward caring, respect, and consideration of one another - everywhere. "
A ban on the legal possession of a weapon that has only one purpose, that is to do violence to another human being, seems in keeping with care, respect and consideration. If thugs are going to have guns no matter what then crime is not the issue. So what is the issue ? I would say that fostering a culture that, as a general rule, frowns on civilians responding to tense situations with lethal force is.
*as a side.... I am not against private ownership of firearms, I am against private ownership of tools that have as there only purpose to kill and main human beings.
It just seems to send the wrong message :-)
Reply
Reply
There are always individuals that are caring, good, and civil. As a whole, though, it always seems to me that the greedy, self-serving, arrogant, and even cruel elements are the real forces that drive our society. The Romans used Self Defense as an excuse to steadily and systematically conquer their Empire, and our own society similarly uses high-sounding ideals to excuse our often inhumane actions.
Reply
Maybe nothing has ever changed.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment