@mseddon ill give that article a read! my frustration is with the focus, yes regulating guns will lower gun violence, but it will not lower overall violence/murder rates. and in self/home defense scenarios, guns are the best tool for defense. and while i love shotguns, they arent the best choice for home defense unless you live in the middle of no where, where overpenetration is'nt a concern.
i hear you on the regulation, maybe i dont concern myself with some regulation because its not specifically acknowledged in the constitution. but you have a point, im sure i indulge in many comforts in this country because of regulation/government help, such as parks, well maintained roads, such like that.
This is what happens when a conversation gets too far 'off topic'. The Pipeline has always been a source of refuge for me, to be able to escape the rhetoric and bitter Cable News debates that rapidly go from civil discourse to vindictive shouting matches. Please guys ... turn down the volume - or better still change the channel. There are thousands of sites for this type of conversation ... this is not the place. Normally we police ourselves pretty well here when going off topic - but on this occasion it's gone well beyond the scope of what this group was intended for. Don't believe I've even seen it descend into this type of flame war as long as I've been here. The dark side has high-jacked our normally civil group. I come here to get away from both Rachel Madow and Shawn Hannity.
As long as the feces flinging is confined to this folder it shouldn't affect anyone's enjoyment of the hundreds of other discussion folders..
What I don't care for is the hate-filled private messages that are being sent, and of course, they're out of sight of the rest of y'all, so no one can be held accountable.
We have reached the point where other forums would have locked this discussion from further posts or suspended users.
I'm all for rational and civil discussions but name calling and rudeness just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs or your politics (are they different things?) is uncalled for.
@judandhispipe believes the 2nd Amendment is meant to provide for "state troops." The way that it is currently worded "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." - in the 1989 revised version of the Constitution - would easily lead people to believe that was the intent.
But I look at the context of the time it was written and the fact that there were no formal state militias at the time nor was there a formal, full time United States Army at the time. In fact, when the Revolutionary Army was formed, it was formed of men who joined with their own arms. Those were the weapons the British had tried to confiscate to prevent rebellion. Because of that the last half of the sentence was written so that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms and the government could not take them away.
Just to be clear... I never said I’m against debate. But I am against the immature and unnecessarily inflammatory language and name-calling that some on this thread are using. Those who’ve seen my postings over the past year can pretty quickly see where I stand on God, the role of government & the military. So I’m not afraid of speaking what I believe. But dude... speak the truth in love! Don’t be a jerk! Don’t cast your pearls before swine. If someone is obviously NOT humble and open to what you’re saying then just stop. Debate is fine and necessary... just not sure a pipe forum is the best place for this.
That said, most of you are doing a great job of presenting your points and not making it personal. Well done!
@TaylorJDutton Again, thanks for listening with open ears. What I like about that Science News article is that it points out that some regulation works, other regulation doesn't. But most of all it points out the need for more well-designed studies. I think we can all get behind that. Let's figure out what works so that if we are constraining rights we know it is for a good reason. Then, yes, I agree with you and ask "What can we do to reduce overall rates of violence?" That, I think, requires a cultural shift, with the first step being to reject the myth of redemptive violence (the belief that violence is the best way to resolve all conflicts, even non-violent ones).
It always surprises me when a self-proclaimed "Sovereign Citizen" (who should all be deported as undesirable aliens in my book) who claims exclusive access to civil rights granted by our democratic-Republic's Constitution ("God" didn't sign it, or the declaration -- only ONE of the declaration's signers was even a preacher!) yet espouse that their desire is to become the Subject of a Kingdom -- which history shows grants almost no rights at all to its peasants and serfs, and there is no way that ALL of the religious Reich will become the "nobility" of the police theocracy that Mike Pence and so many others wish to turn America into so very, very much.
@mseddon totally agree man. honestly that is a frustration i have with other people who carry concealed at times. they see it as the angel on their shoulder that makes them invincible. in reality it should be an absolute last resort when you really believe your life to be on the line (or someone else's). violence should be the last answer, but if the time arises, i really think we should be ready for it.
Cool to find some common ground man. i've enjoyed this conversation
also @AnantaAndroscoggin , im not quite sure i understand what youre saying, what's youre concern? id be happy to hear about it more. is the concern that mike pence wants to force everyone into christianity and make any other faith illegal?
@TaylorJDutton, there are some people who want to replace our form of government with a Christian theocracy - and they aren't shy about it, either. They seem to have some friends in very high places.
@judandhispipe interesting, i have not heard of this. My fear would be my fellow brothers in Christ failing at this, and letting the power get to them, as all humans would. i say we keep letting things continue with the governmental system we have, it’s working better than any other system in history so I’m not keen on changing it. Lol
Also @ocpunk714 we are absolutely brothers of the briar, that’s not going to change from a mere debate. That’s what allows us to be so passionate about very important topics, we all have at least one commonality. The pipe!
@TaylorJDutton I’m all good with debate. We come from different backgrounds with differing opinions, so I get it. It just sucks when it becomes a little less than civil.
A Christian theocracy would be a violation of everything the United States has stood for. This is a secular nation; the Constitution makes that quite clear. There have been people of varying beliefs here since the country was founded. My ancestors were Baptists, living in Plymouth colony. Plymouth lost its charter, and became part of Massachusetts Bay. The latter colony was much less tolerant of diversity in belief - and mind you, these people were all Christians. My ancestors eventually moved to New York, which was more tolerant of their beliefs.
@judandhispipe first off, that is super cool that you know you’re family history, a ton of my family history is unknown to me and my family, so that’s awesome.
And im with you, i am in no way pushing for an intolerant country only accepting of people from my point of view of Christianity.
I've been traveling for business for the last week or so and have not had time to log on here.
For those of you who seem to think that I am some sort of pariah or even possibly the one that was sending motie the "hate filled" PM's... yeah, no!
Not trying to fan any flames here, but I'm definitely not gonna hang my head and walk away either.
To be clear!
I don't come here to start any sort of problems. But I'm sure as hell not gonna shrivel up and cower in the face of Lies or False allegations either.
Just as motie has a right to post his liberal sound bite rhetoric, as it pertains to the 2nd amendment, I have the right to disagree with him.
Should he then falsely cry foul or claim that he has somehow been maligned, it in no way makes his allegations true.
For those of you who are somehow offended by my statements or defense of my positions, all I can say is... "No one is forcing you to read this!".
For those of you who would care to go all the way back through all of my posts since I joined this forum, you will undoubtedly find that I have not been an aggressor here. I simply grew tired of the petty childish quips and decided to reject them.
Again, if this somehow bristles your sensibilities..... Don't read it.
If you disagree with any or all of what I've written, that's completely fine, it's absolutely your prerogative.
But if you somehow think that I'm not entitled to either my opinion or to defend myself against slander or untruths? Well then gents, that's Not Fine and it is most certainly not your prerogative.
In closing I'll finish with this. I realize that I, or others, will probably not change any opinions with my/there convictions or beliefs, and that most of the points, as it pertains to this matter, have probably all been stated, and I am therefore perfectly willing to let things lie where they are.
But please don't be fooled in thinking that I am somehow OK with any continued insulting or antagonistic comments.
@TaylorJDutton- I was fortunate. I have access to a library with fairly extensive resources on the states of the Old Northwest and New England. They have a photocopy of a late 19th/early 20th century family history that went back to the very early days. I was stuck with my 3xg grandfather, until I found a copy of this, and there was my granddad. I then was able to confirm their research independently. My dad was still alive, then; he remembered his grandmother having a copy of that book. I knew we had come to Michigan from New York; knowing they were Baptist, and that the two colonies in Mass had very different attitudes towards Baptists, led me to the conclusion as to probably why they moved.
@judandhispipe so you have family photos going way back? That is awesome, sad to hear my statesmen weren’t welcoming to the baptist brethren at the time. I understand drawing lines in theology, but not state lines haha
@TaylorJDutton Nothing super old - have some from the early 1900s. One,though, from my mom's side of the family that is 1860s. I don't have the original - just an ecopy. This is my great, great grandmother Kleunder. I think this might be a picture made when she got married, which is probably in 1861. She was a French born Roman Catholic girl; her family immigrated to the States - not sure when. She fell in love with and married a young German Protestant (German Reformed, maybe?). She was excommunicated. When she died, relatively young, her family came in and rebaptized all of her children. This is my g'g'grandfather Underwood. He was fighting with General Thomas in the Union army, and was wounded and lost his leg at Chatanooga. He lived until 1918. I am gonna guess that this picture is from the 1880s - he looks like a man in his forties.
@TaylorJDutton Thanks to you also for a good conversation that has helped me learn what you believe. And, one last thing on violence, my brother - an Afghanistan vet - said it best IMHO - Violence may be a necessary solution, it may even be the "best" solution, but it is never a good solution.
@mseddon my guess is the gun enthusiasts that go to porn hub are the crazy ones. Lol. @judandhispipe cool pictures! You carrying on that history will only help with its maintenance in further generations!
Oh, dear God. I don't want to post this and enrage those of who can't control their emotions, but these days it's a moral imperative. (And again, Mr. Cartwright, please don't shoot me; I'm only the messenger. I keep a long gun, myself......) And profuse apologizes for the foul language contained herein. But Mr. Vaughn, here, has a POV worth sharing.
@motie2 well, he’s right about one thing, those people do exist (the fan boy ar 15 owners who can’t shoot worth a damn) but he’s very closed minded, because there are plenty of gun owners who really are proficient, especially people who receive professional training from veterans (probably) far more experience than he. Not to say that he isn’t proficient, I’m sure he is
Comments
i hear you on the regulation, maybe i dont concern myself with some regulation because its not specifically acknowledged in the constitution. but you have a point, im sure i indulge in many comforts in this country because of regulation/government help, such as parks, well maintained roads, such like that.
What I don't care for is the hate-filled private messages that are being sent, and of course, they're out of sight of the rest of y'all, so no one can be held accountable.
I'm all for rational and civil discussions but name calling and rudeness just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs or your politics (are they different things?) is uncalled for.
@judandhispipe believes the 2nd Amendment is meant to provide for "state troops." The way that it is currently worded "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." - in the 1989 revised version of the Constitution - would easily lead people to believe that was the intent.
But I look at the context of the time it was written and the fact that there were no formal state militias at the time nor was there a formal, full time United States Army at the time. In fact, when the Revolutionary Army was formed, it was formed of men who joined with their own arms. Those were the weapons the British had tried to confiscate to prevent rebellion. Because of that the last half of the sentence was written so that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms and the government could not take them away.
That said, most of you are doing a great job of presenting your points and not making it personal. Well done!
Cool to find some common ground man. i've enjoyed this conversation
also @AnantaAndroscoggin , im not quite sure i understand what youre saying, what's youre concern? id be happy to hear about it more. is the concern that mike pence wants to force everyone into christianity and make any other faith illegal?
Also @ocpunk714 we are absolutely brothers of the briar, that’s not going to change from a mere debate. That’s what allows us to be so passionate about very important topics, we all have at least one commonality. The pipe!
My ancestors were Baptists, living in Plymouth colony. Plymouth lost its charter, and became part of Massachusetts Bay. The latter colony was much less tolerant of diversity in belief - and mind you, these people were all Christians. My ancestors eventually moved to New York, which was more tolerant of their beliefs.
And im with you, i am in no way pushing for an intolerant country only accepting of people from my point of view of Christianity.
For those of you who seem to think that I am some sort of pariah or even possibly the one that was sending motie the "hate filled" PM's... yeah, no!
Not trying to fan any flames here, but I'm definitely not gonna hang my head and walk away either.
To be clear!
I don't come here to start any sort of problems. But I'm sure as hell not gonna shrivel up and cower in the face of Lies or False allegations either.
Just as motie has a right to post his liberal sound bite rhetoric, as it pertains to the 2nd amendment, I have the right to disagree with him.
Should he then falsely cry foul or claim that he has somehow been maligned, it in no way makes his allegations true.
For those of you who are somehow offended by my statements or defense of my positions, all I can say is... "No one is forcing you to read this!".
For those of you who would care to go all the way back through all of my posts since I joined this forum, you will undoubtedly find that I have not been an aggressor here. I simply grew tired of the petty childish quips and decided to reject them.
Again, if this somehow bristles your sensibilities..... Don't read it.
If you disagree with any or all of what I've written, that's completely fine, it's absolutely your prerogative.
But if you somehow think that I'm not entitled to either my opinion or to defend myself against slander or untruths? Well then gents, that's Not Fine and it is most certainly not your prerogative.
In closing I'll finish with this. I realize that I, or others, will probably not change any opinions with my/there convictions or beliefs, and that most of the points, as it pertains to this matter, have probably all been stated, and I am therefore perfectly willing to let things lie where they are.
But please don't be fooled in thinking that I am somehow OK with any continued insulting or antagonistic comments.
Yo, Cartwright, leave me out of your screeds and I won't complain.
This is my great, great grandmother Kleunder. I think this might be a picture made when she got married, which is probably in 1861. She was a French born Roman Catholic girl; her family immigrated to the States - not sure when. She fell in love with and married a young German Protestant (German Reformed, maybe?). She was excommunicated. When she died, relatively young, her family came in and rebaptized all of her children.
This is my g'g'grandfather Underwood. He was fighting with General Thomas in the Union army, and was wounded and lost his leg at Chatanooga. He lived until 1918. I am gonna guess that this picture is from the 1880s - he looks like a man in his forties.
Cupcake pleads, "Please, don't shoot me; I'm only the messenger."
(And again, Mr. Cartwright, please don't shoot me; I'm only the messenger. I keep a long gun, myself......)
And profuse apologizes for the foul language contained herein. But Mr. Vaughn, here, has a POV worth sharing.