Can i own a SBR.
Can i own a supressor
Can i own a >10rd pistol mag
Can i own a shockwave
Does my right apply  past my door step
Can i use lawful self defense and not get sued by bad guy or his family

See how logic is applied and not emotion. FYI the answer to all of the above is NO.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You wrap it all with rationale but there still is an emotion within. I think your conversations on this board clearly indicate that firearm rights should be respected beyond a purely academic standpoint. You have a passion about it otherwise why else talk about it? (Not saying that is a bad thing either)

Can i own a SBR.
Can i own a supressor
Can i own a >10rd pistol mag
Can i own a shockwave
Does my right apply  past my door step
Can i use lawful self defense and not get sued by bad guy or his family

See how logic is applied and not emotion. FYI the answer to all of the above is NO.

Exactly.
Passion is not fear.
Logic is not fear.
Knowing and understanding the lessons of history is not fear.
Living with a personal code to protect yourself against anything that can harm us or our family because nobody else will is not fear. 

Taking action to preserve civil rights that are meant to enable us to do so is not fear.

These are our duties and responsibilities, to be able and prepared to defend agains bad things: people, fire, accidents, electric shock,... so many dangers in the world.  Fear and emotion are normally not involved when you buy a smoke detector, a fire extinguisher or a first aid kit.  Why is it only fear when you buy a gun or want to defend the right to keep and bear them?

So tired of the lack of insight some people show.  Maybe after they've lived as long as others have, they'll have experiences to guide them and not just academic hogwash.

If you want to see fear, talk about Climate Change, people not getting vaccinated and Trump.

You wrap it all with rationale but there still is an emotion within. I think your conversations on this board clearly indicate that firearm rights should be respected beyond a purely academic standpoint. You have a passion about it otherwise why else talk about it? (Not saying that is a bad thing either)

Passion might be used to describe what we do here, but a better phase would be correcting a wrong.  If HI didn't violate the 2a, then there would be no "passion"/interest into correcting it. Like up until COVID, HI has not violated the 1A in such a manner. So once they began doing it, is when the people speak up about it.

So it's a rational cause and effect. What  you're leaving out and trying to do whataboutism is when we state the left uses emotion to pass laws, when they are asked what stats do they have to back up their laws, they have none.  Like when HI was asked in court what stats do they have that registration in person prevents crime, they came up empty handed.  Even though they are the ones who stated that reg prevents crime. So logic dictates that it doesn't. But emotion to try to push anti 2a gun laws is enough to pass them. But not this time.

Exactly.
Passion is not fear.
Logic is not fear.
Knowing and understanding the lessons of history is not fear.
Living with a personal code to protect yourself against anything that can harm us or our family because nobody else will is not fear. 

Taking action to preserve civil rights that are meant to enable us to do so is not fear.

These are our duties and responsibilities, to be able and prepared to defend agains bad things: people, fire, accidents, electric shock,... so many dangers in the world.  Fear and emotion are normally not involved when you buy a smoke detector, a fire extinguisher or a first aid kit.  Why is it only fear when you buy a gun or want to defend the right to keep and bear them?

So tired of the lack of insight some people show.  Maybe after they've lived as long as others have, they'll have experiences to guide them and not just academic hogwash.

If you want to see fear, talk about Climate Change, people not getting vaccinated and Trump.

You realize you are doing exactly what Johnathan Haidt talks about? You are convincing yourself you are rational. Talk about lack of insight

Passion might be used to describe what we do here, but a better phase would be correcting a wrong.  If HI didn't violate the 2a, then there would be no "passion"/interest into correcting it. Like up until COVID, HI has not violated the 1A in such a manner. So once they began doing it, is when the people speak up about it.

So it's a rational cause and effect. What  you're leaving out and trying to do whataboutism is when we state the left uses emotion to pass laws, when they are asked what stats do they have to back up their laws, they have none.  Like when HI was asked in court what stats do they have that registration in person prevents crime, they came up empty handed.  Even though they are the ones who stated that reg prevents crime. So logic dictates that it doesn't. But emotion to try to push anti 2a gun laws is enough to pass them. But not this time.

I would argue that passion is tied to emotion though. And please note I am not saying it is bad. Emotion/passion gives us drive and logic/rationale gives us direction, they both play a role. Emotion without logic could drive us off a cliff but logic without emotion leaves us without interest to act.

Liberals care more about the harm/care and fairness/cheating moral foundation so they have stronger reactions to things like school shootings where as conservatives don't rank as strongly so to us it seems like the liberals have too much emotion but I would argue that it isn't that they have more emotion than conservatives, just that it is more concentrated whereas ours are more spread out. Conservatives could easily be labeled as emotional from liberal perspectives when it comes to other issues related to moral foundations they rank lower on.

One thing I want to push back on is this idea that liberals are only guided by emotion. However I disagree with their positions on guns and even though I do think their arguments rely more heavily on emotion their  arguments are not without supporting data or rationale. I would argue that their elephant is responding to the violence and walking towards gun control leaving the rider to look for things to support their position. In other words the data is not leading the charge, the desire to solve the problem is but that doesn't mean there is no rationale to their position. I am not asking you to agree with their conclusions, only to recognize that there is some rationale to their position.

Here is a good video where Johnathan Haidt covers the moral matrices if you are interested.

You realize you are doing exactly what Johnathan Haidt talks about? You are convincing yourself you are rational. Talk about lack of insight

Okay, I'll break silence this one time ...

Logically, the only way I'd need to "convince myself I am rational" is if you believe I am irrational.

Your BS author is turning everything into a catch-22.  If you say you're rational, then you're not rational.  If you were rational, you wouldn't be saying you're rational -- which is an obvious sign you're trying to convince yourself you're rational, which is a sign you aren't rational.

Stop practicing psychology without a license.

I again tune you out, because I have no more of my time to give you.

Okay, I'll break silence this one time ...

Logically, the only way I'd need to "convince myself I am rational" is if you believe I am irrational.

Your BS author is turning everything into a catch-22.  If you say you're rational, then you're not rational.  If you were rational, you wouldn't be saying you're rational -- which is an obvious sign you're trying to convince yourself you're rational, which is a sign you aren't rational.

Stop practicing psychology without a license.

I again tune you out, because I have no more of my time to give you.

So our resident whataboutism practice r reads a book by an author who also is a whataboutism practice r.  Who would have thunk.

I would argue that passion is tied to emotion though. And please note I am not saying it is bad. Emotion/passion gives us drive and logic/rationale gives us direction, they both play a role. Emotion without logic could drive us off a cliff but logic without emotion leaves us without interest to act.

Liberals care more about the harm/care and fairness/cheating moral foundation so they have stronger reactions to things like school shootings where as conservatives don't rank as strongly so to us it seems like the liberals have too much emotion but I would argue that it isn't that they have more emotion than conservatives, just that it is more concentrated whereas ours are more spread out. Conservatives could easily be labeled as emotional from liberal perspectives when it comes to other issues related to moral foundations they rank lower on.

One thing I want to push back on is this idea that liberals are only guided by emotion. However I disagree with their positions on guns and even though I do think their arguments rely more heavily on emotion their  arguments are not without supporting data or rationale. I would argue that their elephant is responding to the violence and walking towards gun control leaving the rider to look for things to support their position. In other words the data is not leading the charge, the desire to solve the problem is but that doesn't mean there is no rationale to their position. I am not asking you to agree with their conclusions, only to recognize that there is some rationale to their position.

Here is a good video where Johnathan Haidt covers the moral matrices if you are interested.

This post was basically more whataboutism and going in circles again. I'm done.

Okay, I'll break silence this one time ...

Logically, the only way I'd need to "convince myself I am rational" is if you believe I am irrational.

Your BS author is turning everything into a catch-22.  If you say you're rational, then you're not rational.  If you were rational, you wouldn't be saying you're rational -- which is an obvious sign you're trying to convince yourself you're rational, which is a sign you aren't rational.

Stop practicing psychology without a license.

I again tune you out, because I have no more of my time to give you.

You couldn't tune me out if you tried. You have to chime in anytime I say something, you have to find something to argue about even if I am agreeing with you.

Your objections ignore evidence and reality.  I never said we are never rational, we aren't purely emotional. You are making a strawman.

This post was basically more whataboutism and going in circles again. I'm done.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. You are literally doing what I pointed out, finding a way to disregard the science and data. How is that logical?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. You are literally doing what I pointed out, finding a way to disregard the science and data. How is that logical?

According to you. So I will take that as a compliment.

The suggestion that liberals are driven by compassion is nonsense.

If liberals really cared about kids we would be allowed to talk about SSRI inhibitors.

There's an article about mental health and gun violence on CB today.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/07/denby-fawcett-the-lonely-backgrounds-that-trigger-mass-shooters/

Go ahead and try and post a comment about SSRIs and the dangers we've known for years, specifically the well documented episodes of violent behavior in 16-21 year old males.

They won't publish it. You know why? Because they don't really care about dead kids.

Dead kids are just something they use as an excuse to take away our guns.

Until their political opponents are disarmed, the more dead kids the better.

All they care about is power

Yes, the shootings that appear to be orchestrated only serve only one groups interests.

As HB says, they probably have no real interest in the causes, as long as they are politically useful.

The suggestion that liberals are driven by compassion is nonsense.

If liberals really cared about kids we would be allowed to talk about SSRI inhibitors.

There's an article about mental health and gun violence on CB today.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/07/denby-fawcett-the-lonely-backgrounds-that-trigger-mass-shooters/

Go ahead and try and post a comment about SSRIs and the dangers we've known for years, specifically the well documented episodes of violent behavior in 16-21 year old males.

They won't publish it. You know why? Because they don't really care about dead kids.

Dead kids are just something they use as an excuse to take away our guns.

Until their political opponents are disarmed, the more dead kids the better.

All they care about is power

That is a pretty strong claim, to suggest that liberals don't have compassion for dead children. They are misguided I would argue but certainly not without compassion.

As for the question of psych drugs and SSRIs, my first question is whether they are the symptom or the cause? Are the drugs causing violent side effects or are they just being given to people already violent? Tough to tease out. I certainly think it is an area worth looking more into.

According to you. So I will take that as a compliment.

I think my comment was not helpful so I apologize for that. Let me pose one simple question to you, you don't even have to answer, just think about it.

Is it possible that you have a bias towards Trump and it is influencing how you are viewing the hearing?
(I think you would agree anti-Trump bias is affecting how liberals are watching it)

That is a pretty strong claim, to suggest that liberals don't have compassion for dead children.

A lack of compassion would be bad enough, but I think they actually look forward to mass shooting events as an opportunity to parade their virtue and attack anyone who disagrees with them.

Have you seen what's on Tik-tok? Humanity is in a pretty dark place right now.

I think my comment was not helpful so I apologize for that. Let me pose one simple question to you, you don't even have to answer, just think about it.

Is it possible that you have a bias towards Trump and it is influencing how you are viewing the hearing?
(I think you would agree anti-Trump bias is affecting how liberals are watching it)

No.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

No.

Exactly.  Objectivity is what it is. If the EVIDENCE and CREDIBLE testimony proved what the committee already made up their minds that Trump did, I'd be fine with agreeing they "got their man."

This is the fourth time they've gone after him (Russia hoax, 2 impeachments, now this), wasting their time and our money. As of yet, no evidence he did anything illegal, abused his power, or did anything close to attacking his security agents.

That conclusion is based on the information THE COMMITTEE saw fit to present -- not allowing any testimony that discredited or refuted that information.

This is how the Salem witch trials were run.  There's a reason this has been called a show trial.  They aren't interested in the truth.  They are trying to check off the "hearing" box so they can get to the predetermined outcome: preventing Trump from running in 2024.

A lack of compassion would be bad enough, but I think they actually look forward to mass shooting events as an opportunity to parade their virtue and attack anyone who disagrees with them.

Several of us here and quite a few on other fourms are sure these are orchestrated events to advance their agenda. 

Prior stooges like maybe Oswald and Booth seem standalone as in those days instant access and comms were not possible.

They. like prior communist regimes, do not care how many eggs they break if the omelet comes out right.

The 6 justices who overturned Roe should never know peace again. It is our civic duty to accost them every time they are in public. They are pariahs. Since women don't have their rights, these justices should never have a peaceful moment in public again.

— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) June 25, 2022

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/they-should-never-know-peace-again-harvard-instructor-calls-people-accost-justices-public


You can't reason with people like this