Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Steelers - Giants Giants
August 9th, 2014, 7:30pmET

CBS
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-01-2012, 02:00 PM   #121
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 6,999
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 493
Thanked 3,965 Times in 2,040 Posts
My Mood: Mellow
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan View Post
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
Robert Heinlein

I suppose who is teaching and who is annoyed by that teaching in this thread depends on your point of view
Quote time? I like this one:

“The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it”
Lawrence M. Krauss
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 02:01 PM   #122
Vincent
Team President
Supporter
 
Vincent's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: People's Republic of North Carolina
Posts: 2,485
Member Number: 10927
Thanks: 13
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCMom View Post
Most of what you stated as war are not actual wars, but operations and the like.
So wars are only wars when party A declares war on party B? Are the killed and maimed aware of this? Does party B need to return the gesture? If neither party declares war, is it a war? Did we declare war on Great Britain in what we call our "Revolutionary War"? Did they declare war on us?

Is the muslim brotherhood, as a caliphate, declaring jihad on us any different than Venezuela declaring war on us, other than Venezuela's inability to carry it out?

You don't have the vaguest clue what is going on in the world, do you? Don't feel bad. Few do.
__________________

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln
Vincent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 02:53 PM   #123
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
So wars are only wars when party A declares war on party B? Are the killed and maimed aware of this? Does party B need to return the gesture? If neither party declares war, is it a war? Did we declare war on Great Britain in what we call our "Revolutionary War"? Did they declare war on us?

Is the muslim brotherhood, as a caliphate, declaring jihad on us any different than Venezuela declaring war on us, other than Venezuela's inability to carry it out?

You don't have the vaguest clue what is going on in the world, do you? Don't feel bad. Few do.
Call it whatever you want, a group of extremists vowing to destroy something does not equal one nation going to war or battle with the other. That's a group of people making threats, and it doesn't hold for ALL of the people in that group. Again, we're talking about a religion/idea here, not a nation. The 'war on terrorism' is not the same as WWII. It is an unwinnable 'war' because it's basically fighting a shared idea, and not a nations army. You'd think people would have figured that out by now.

If the muslim brotherhood does indeed win as many seats as they want in Egypt, and then attack America...then no, there isn't any difference to Venezuela declaring war on us.

And yes, I know what's going on in the world today...I just choose not to gobble up every piece of propaganda I come across as holy scripture and spew it out the other end.

Still, you have not answered how arms could effectively be kept out US muslims hands.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 03:09 PM   #124
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13,991
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 1,807
Thanked 5,684 Times in 2,627 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
You don't have the vaguest clue what is going on in the world, do you? Don't feel bad. Few do.
Those few perhaps numbering at least one less than your count
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 03:25 PM   #125
Vincent
Team President
Supporter
 
Vincent's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: People's Republic of North Carolina
Posts: 2,485
Member Number: 10927
Thanks: 13
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCMom View Post
If the muslim brotherhood does indeed win as many seats as they want in Egypt, and then attack America...then no, there isn't any difference to Venezuela declaring war on us.
Mom, seriously, if the sovs didn't attack us, nobody is going to wage an assault on the United States. "Mutually Assured Destruction" ring a bell? There is no possibility of surviving such a folly, much less winning it. That's 2nd generation warfare. We're in and moving past 4th gen warfare into what the strategerists call "hybrid warfare". And that is what islam wages against us.

Islam has so deeply penetrated both parties, "education", and the media in this country that a significant number of our countrymen can't imagine that we were attacked on 9/11 or why its an affront to build a mosque across the street from the atrocity. That is the product of 4th gen warfare. That is what lost Viet Nam for us and what will do us in if we don't pull our heads out of our asses and start making some sane decisions, the likelihood of which is slim and none.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCMom View Post
Still, you have not answered how arms could effectively be kept out US muslims hands.
Again, what I said was "As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms.". There is no possibility of disarming muslims in the United States short of interning and deporting them all. A country that considers such an idea as madness doesn't have the stomach for that. And they know it.

Interestingly, our gubmint proclaims that returning combat veterans, people that call themselves patriots, religious folks and people that take issue with globalism are terror threats. There is a much greater likelihood that the gubmint will seek to disarm them before they would ever risk "offending" practitioners of "the religion of peace".
__________________

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln
Vincent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 05:35 PM   #126
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
Mom, seriously, if the sovs didn't attack us, nobody is going to wage an assault on the United States. "Mutually Assured Destruction" ring a bell? There is no possibility of surviving such a folly, much less winning it. That's 2nd generation warfare. We're in and moving past 4th gen warfare into what the strategerists call "hybrid warfare". And that is what islam wages against us.

Islam has so deeply penetrated both parties, "education", and the media in this country that a significant number of our countrymen can't imagine that we were attacked on 9/11 or why its an affront to build a mosque across the street from the atrocity. That is the product of 4th gen warfare. That is what lost Viet Nam for us and what will do us in if we don't pull our heads out of our asses and start making some sane decisions, the likelihood of which is slim and none.
Don't agree with you, but not going to debate it because I'm pretty sure we've been over this at some point too. It also wasn't where I was trying to get the conversation to go either, and know whatever I say won't change your opinion.



Quote:
Again, what I said was "As long as we are at war with islam, its foolish to allow your enemy to bear arms.". There is no possibility of disarming muslims in the United States short of interning and deporting them all. A country that considers such an idea as madness doesn't have the stomach for that. And they know it.

Interestingly, our gubmint proclaims that returning combat veterans, people that call themselves patriots, religious folks and people that take issue with globalism are terror threats. There is a much greater likelihood that the gubmint will seek to disarm them before they would ever risk "offending" practitioners of "the religion of peace".
That is why we can't allow the government to take away 2nd amendment rights from anyone who is law abiding...even if those persons are part of a religion in which exstremists have vowed to destroy the nation. As long as everyone is afforded that one right, all others cannot be completely stripped. It's the price of freedom.

And I for one am happy to be one of those that doesn't have the stomach for stripping US citizens of their rights.

I only asked because you seem like you would be in favor of such an action, and that doesn't really jibe with the notion that the 2nd amendment is absolute. You would be willing to accept that 'unless' part of it...I am not.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 07:47 PM   #127
tony hipchest
IRONMAN a.k.a. Tony Stark
 
tony hipchest's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Give me back my game...
Posts: 38,020
Member Number: 658
Thanks: 1,440
Thanked 6,088 Times in 2,618 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

what a great song. this song perfectly sums up what those 18th century muzzle loaders had in mind when they drafted the holy constitution-


"Violence rules. Guns are cool, and weve got guns in our schools...."

[YOUTUBE]nV5cqfuY-mQ[/YOUTUBE]
__________________
tony hipchest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 07:52 PM   #128
tony hipchest
IRONMAN a.k.a. Tony Stark
 
tony hipchest's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Give me back my game...
Posts: 38,020
Member Number: 658
Thanks: 1,440
Thanked 6,088 Times in 2,618 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
First he will force them to wear some sort of symbol on their shirts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MACH1 View Post


Just Kidding! Couldn't help it.
__________________
tony hipchest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 08:33 PM   #129
tony hipchest
IRONMAN a.k.a. Tony Stark
 
tony hipchest's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Give me back my game...
Posts: 38,020
Member Number: 658
Thanks: 1,440
Thanked 6,088 Times in 2,618 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
This isn't personal Dan. Who you or I agree with or disagree with could not be less relevant. It's not a chess match or battle of wits with a Justice. It is the black and white, unavoidable, bedrock reality that the 2nd Amendment says what it says for the reasons the framers said it.

While you or I might question the practicality of a 14 year old coming to class with a loaded AR-15, such instances have no bearing on the validity or efficacy of the amendment. The framers had sufficient understanding of the human psyche, and the attendant foresight to express the amendment such that it precludes subsequent nefarious attempts to destroy our liberty through case law.
"the framers... the framers..."

[YOUTUBE]CCcX3BlP4bw[/YOUTUBE]

i love guns as much as the next guy (because guns are cool, feel good to shoot, and its an awesome power to be able to quickly take a life and blow shit up) but i cant buy this weak argument about the 18th century muzzle loaders being infalliable and omnipotent. they sure missed the boat on the whole "all men are created equal unless they are a savage or slave" thingy.

i get that we are supposed to take up our arms and kill our fellow citizens (i.e. the gubmint) as soon as the 2nd ammendment is changed. sounds real good on paper. but to me it kinda strikes me the same as the death penalty. many people are for it. but for every 1000 people that are in favor of it, how many dozen would actually be willing to flip the switch and take extinguish the life.

since you are obviously the expert and well versed in the muzzle loader's intentions and thought process, please allow me to become edjumicated.

-where would the muzzle loaders buy their pea shooters? (i assume they couldnt just drive down to wal mart and pick one up or get one off the street corner for a $20 sack of crack)

-do you have any numbers on what the gun ownership per capita was back then? if i had to guess, and this is a pure guess, i would say 1 gun per household of 4 persons?

- what was the cost of a pea shooter relative to a persons monthly or annual income?

-is it fair to assume that a gun was likely a mans most valuable possession (besides a house, farm, horse etc.)? is it possible their pea shooter cost more than their main mode of transportation? I honestly dont know.

-
__________________
tony hipchest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2012, 08:54 PM   #130
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: Shooting at Batman movie

Gotta say, I'm not the biggest proponent of banning all assault weapons (meaning weapons beyond semi-automatics), but this article does a pretty decent job of breaking down the argument and explaining why the government does indeed have a right to reasonably make restrictions on gun ownership.

The Jeffersonian Perspective
Commentary on Today's Social and Political Issues
Based on the Writings of Thomas Jefferson


Gun Control

The right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, is a right with a purpose. The Amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The mind of the Founders had different sensitivities than ours molded under the legacy they have won for us. They were intensely aware that they were presenting to the world something new: a nation of people who govern themselves. Thus, the government and the nation itself was the responsibility of every able-bodied man. And to fulfill that responsibility in an essentially hostile world, it was necessary that each man be armed and capable of defending the nation against invaders, or even against usurpers who might take over the government. For the safety of the nation, then, it was imperative that no governmental authority have the capacity to disarm the people for any reason whatsoever. That is the vital interest that the 2nd Amendment sought to protect.

It is difficult to translate this responsibility and concern into modern terms. Times have changed, and it would be easy to allow one's biases one way or another to intrude when contemplating the stretch that one must make to bring the 2nd Amendment into the 20th century. Moreover, if we acknowledge the deterioration of modern society and the number of people with warped minds who acquire fully automatic weapons and use them for illegitimate purposes, we must also recognize an entirely new dimension that must enter into our calculations. We must look carefully, therefore, at the interests the amendment was designed to protect.

No one in America today owns guns on the off-chance that he might need to use them defend his country against an invading enemy. Our country has developed in such a way that it does not rely on a militia of all the citizens as a first line of defense. Rather, most legitimate gun owners today want them for hunting animals (usually for food) and for protecting their property, their persons, and their family against harm. Many want them as collectors items and as part of a hobby. No doubt, these reasons were the main reasons why the early citizens of this country also wanted to own firearms.

The thought that individuals in this country might need weapons to guard against the possibility of their own government becoming a despotic force that can only be subdued by the citizens taking arms was not realistic nor justifiable, in Jefferson's view. As long as the basic features of our republic are still intact, there are means by which change may be brought about peaceably. Jefferson thought that there was nothing that should induce citizens under such a government to rise up against it, and felt that a proper society must have laws in place to deal with such an uprising should it occur.

"In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people directly expressed by their free suffrages, where the principal executive functionaries and those of the legislature are renewed by them at short periods, where under the character of jurors they exercise in person the greatest portion of the judiciary powers, where the laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against insurrection or enterprise on the public peace or authority. The laws, however, aware that these should not be trusted to moral restraints only, have wisely provided punishments for these crimes when committed." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806

This could never be justification for disarming the people, of course. Whereas there may be no present cause for insurrection, that does not mean that at some future time such a necessity will not arise. Were our republican institutions undermined by despotism, armed insurrection may be the only means for the people to restore self-government, just as it was in our Revolution.

"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. Papers, 1:429
Assuming that we have a republican government which is reasonably responsive to the people, the question then arises, Is any form of regulation and control of firearms justified in America today? This much seems clear: The right of a free people to defend themselves is just as essential today as it ever was. The real dangers faced by the citizen of today are every bit as threatening as those faced by the citizens of the early years of this republic. The right, therefore, to keep and bear arms for hunting and for defense is a right that should be fully protected and never infringed upon.

But does that right mean that a citizen has the right to own any kind of firearms whatsoever? Is there any justification for the government restricting certain types of firearms, and if so, on what basis?

There are no rights that are absolute. In his draft of the Virginia Constitution (1776), Jefferson included the provision that "no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" but added the note, "within his own lands or tenements." This was many years before the 2nd Amendment, of course, but the principle is clear: The right to keep and bear arms is not infringed as a right if the use is restricted to what is reasonable and proper to fulfill the purpose of that right.

No right may be claimed for activity that is part of a crime or an intent to commit a crime. Having outlined the legitimate reasons for owning firearms, it is reasonable to propose that firearms that do NOT fulfill those legitimate needs, that are only or mainly suited for criminal activity, can and should be carefully regulated by the government. No one's rights are being infringed upon IF that person has the right to "keep and bear" arms for hunting, for defense, and as collector's items.

Based on that reasoning, Assault weapons, Machine guns, Hand grenades and any other type of weapon of mass destruction not essential for defense could be banned by the government without infringing any legitimate right. For persons genuinely interested in defense, those kinds of weapons are in many instances actually inadequate and dangerous to have around. Certainly, they are of no use when hunting game. In fact, it is likely that in a confrontation between one person with an AK-47 assault rifle and another with, say, a Smith & Wesson 38/357, where there is no sizeable distance involved, the person with the revolver would be able to bring it to bear and fire at least the first crucial shots more quickly and accurately. The AK-47 is capable of firing more shots and at a much faster rate, of course; but it cannot be brought to bear as quickly, and the man with the pistol would likely get off the first crucial and decisive ones.

The real advantage to the assault style rifles is their ability to be converted easily into fully automatic machine guns, and the availability of clips or drums which would allow far more shots that the average sporting rifle or pistol. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter how many bullets you have if you cannot deliver the first crucial ones before the other guy can. A disadvantage of the assault rifle for ordinary defense is that the bullets may go from their target through doors and walls, with unintended consequences. While still a possibility, this is far less likely with most handguns. The AK-47 would be more effective for mass murder, but the pistol would be the first choice for defense.

The problem is to find a reasonable, rational solution. A total ban of all weapons, or no ban whatsoever, is neither reasonable nor rational.


http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco06.htm
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts