No one is trying to read your mind annie, least of all me.
Oh? Could have fooled me.
The freedoms have to be exchanged for the feeling of security that you are desperately seeking.
The government can't keep you safe from every bad thing that can possibly occur annie - regardless of how much of your freedom you are willing to trade for the feeling that they can.
Of course they can't but tell me, please, why it seems to be impossible for you to see middle ground as anything other than giving up your freeeeedom?
What keeps the vast majority of your fellow citizens from doing harm to you or the society has nothing to do with there being laws against them doing so. They don't do harm because they are decent human beings. The laws are written to deal with those who aren't decent human beings, not to keep the decent ones decent. It isn't fear of punishment that keeps the vast majority of us from breaking the laws, it is our respect for the rights and property of others.
This completely ignores the fact that basically good & decent people do stupid things all the time with no intention of harming anyone else. And (to take one easy example) if you don't think that a very large number of commuters try to stay within the speed limits driving through Turkey Creek Canyon because they are wary of the Morrison cops and their ticket books rather than any "respect for the rights and property of others", you're delusional.
What keeps the vast majority of your fellow citizens from doing harm to you or the society has nothing to do with there being laws against them doing so. They don't do harm because they are decent human beings. The laws are written to deal with those who aren't decent human beings, not to keep the decent ones decent. It isn't fear of punishment that keeps the vast majority of us from breaking the laws, it is our respect for the rights and property of others.
This completely ignores the fact that basically good & decent people do stupid things all the time with no intention of harming anyone else. And (to take one easy example) if you don't think that a very large number of commuters try to stay within the speed limits driving through Turkey Creek Canyon because they are wary of the Morrison cops and their ticket books rather than any "respect for the rights and property of others", you're delusional.
If you pay close attention, the only time they appear concerned with the speed limit is when they are near one of the lying in wait points that the Morrison officers haunt on a regular basis. Other than that, they drive at the speed with which they are comfortable traveling - which is generally speaking somewhere around 10 over what the sign says they may legally travel at. There are a few bozos every day that are traveling at least 20+ over until they hit those spots, but the majority of them are traveling at a safe, if excessive according to the posted limits, speed the rest of the time. They travel at that speed because they feel it to be safe and within their capabilities. The actual speed limit law is wholly ignored when they feel unlikely to encounter the force of government compelling them to follow it. They are still traveling at what they view to be a safe and reasonable speed, and generally speaking they are all traveling at about the same speed. Not because the law compels them to, because they are actually violating the law for the majority of their commute, but because that is the speed at which they feel that they, and you, are safe at. Laws don't keep you safe - the decency of your fellow citizens does.
The government can't keep you safe from every bad thing that can possibly occur annie - regardless of how much of your freedom you are willing to trade for the feeling that they can.
Of course they can't but tell me, please, why it seems to be impossible for you to see middle ground as anything other than giving up your freeeeedom?
Ridicule won't faze me annie - you should understand that by now. If you want to have a reasoned discussion I am happy to oblige. If you want to do an LJ imitation I can also treat you in like fashion.
As far as middle ground goes, I think the pro-gun folks have been more than accommodating and sought the middle ground. The 1993 ban on scary looking weapons that were functionally indistinguishable from less scary looking ones went beyond middle ground. Trying to deprive us of the ability to purchase a drum magazine simply because one madman purchased it and went on a killing spree isn't middle ground. Trying to make 30 round, or even 20 round, magazines illegal isn't middle ground. Denying us the opportunity to own and enjoy select fire weapons manufactured after 1986 because Prohibition Era gangs misused automatic weapons isn't middle ground either. Limiting the number of rounds that we are allowed to possess isn't middle ground.
What the far left thinks the middle is isn't relevant by itself, nor is what the far right believes the middle to be. The middle is going to be less regulation than one side wants and more than the other side wants - which is where we are at the moment. A few more laws aren't going to make you any safer than you are right now and a few less laws aren't going to dramatically increase the danger you face.
Tell me annie - what laws would you like to see that would have prevented this madman from doing what he did? A requirement that the background check include a recent evaluation by a mental health professional? Destruction of all AR-15 type rifles? A tax on high capacity magazines when they are sold or transferred? A limit on how many rounds of ammunition one merchant can sell to one customer over a given time period? What law is it that you would like to see that we don't already have?
appleannie wrote: lol You seem to be having trouble keeping up with yourself.
When you apply the often used tactic of the left and remove a single sentence from the context in which it is used, that might truly appear to be the case. In context, however, there is no inconsistency. Your premise was that folks driving on 285 followed the speed limit because of the Morrison cops. The premise is flawed because the majority of them travel in excess of the speed limit unless they are near a place where the Morrison cops regularly try to hand out tickets.
My premise is that the law doesn't determine at what speed they travel unless they are near where they expect to find the Morrison cops, their comfort with a certain speed is what keeps them from traveling much faster or much slower. They are comfortable at a speed in excess of the lawful one, they feel that they can travel that speed without endangering themselves or others and so that is the speed that they travel at unless they expect to encounter the use of government force to compel them to travel at the posted speed limit. Take away the speed limit signs, take away the Morrison cops, and you wouldn't really notice a change in the speed at which most people are traveling.
OH NO!!! No doubt one was a Muslim who has infiltrated the government; and the other was no doubt a member of Occupy...(with ties to the late Vince Foster...)
A psychologist who works at the campus Holmes attended until recently received a parcel from the shooter this week. It contains details of his attack:
The source said the package had been in the mailroom since July 12, though another source who confirmed the discovery to FoxNews.com could not say if the package arrived prior to Friday's massacre. It was not clear why it had not been delivered to the psychiatrist. The notebook is now in possession of the FBI.
Mitt Romney: 'Many' Of Aurora Shooting Suspect's Weapons Were Illegal
LONDON — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday said many of the weapons obtained by the shooting suspect in Colorado were obtained illegally and that changing laws won't prevent gun-related tragedies.
But the firearms that authorities allege James Holmes used to kill 12 people in Aurora, Colo., were obtained legally.
"This person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them," Romney told NBC News in an interview. "And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."
Holmes broke no laws when he purchased an assault-style rifle, a shotgun and Glock handgun, and he passed the required background checks.
