Jump to content

Connecting the Dots: Guns, Gays and Obamacare


DigitalScout

Recommended Posts

That is a leap.

 

Police don't have a duty to protect you. Law enforcement does deter some crime because would-be perps calculate that they may be caught (after they've already done the harm, typically) and punished. But that doesn't protect you from a perp who thinks he can get away with it or who doesn't care about the consequences.

 

Type "no duty to protect" into your search engine, for starters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Adulation of Obama? As time has marched on, I've seen less and less respect for both the presidents and the office itself - Bush II and Obama to a major degree. I don't like that trend. I guess if one has an intense dislike for Obama and/or his policies, branding anyone or any action as "adulation" if one is in agreement with our President could be a knee jerk response.

 

Most police mottoes are along the vein of "protect and serve" and it usually is the lives and property of the people they serve which could be construed as the "government" or the "people." For example, "The mission of the XXX Police Department is to maintain order, preserve human life, protect property, and advance the quality of life issues within our community." - doesn't sound like some personal government protection unit to me.

 

For myself, I remember 1968 - Kennedy shot & killed, King shot & killed, Tet Offensive, seeds of Watergate, 5,000 National Guardsmen and a reinforced Chicago Police Department and demonstrators saying "hello" to each other at the Democratic National Convention, Johnson's "I shall not seek and I will not accept" declaration, huge demonstrations in Paris, Mexico, Poland, Egypt, West Germany, Czechoslovakia, student unrest and dissent in the USA, Pope Paul VI encyclical, teacher strikes, racial strife (busing, riots), USS Pueblo seized, Prague Spring and resultant invasion by Warsaw Pact, etc. Now that was a time of change for all - young/old, male/female, black/white, etc. Makes today seem milquetoast.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent debate over gun control has revealed that there sizable segament of our society who doesn't necessary want guns for hunting or personal defense, but to protect themselves against the tyranny of the government.

 

I find this concept baffling. Am I just being naive in thinking that are democratically elected representatives carry out the will of the citizens? And that our constitution, not guns, protect us from tyranny?

 

Do you believe that our representative democracy is, as Abraham Lincoln says, 'a government of the people, by the people, for the people?' If not, then what is our government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah, hmmm...

 

I can't even figure out what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

For what it's worth, most intelligent contemporaries of their day believed Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein, eh? They were just reportin' da science based on the evidence.

 

Da folks who were denyin' reality and ignorin' or tryin' to suppress science were the same then as now. Well-monied entrenched interests and their lobbyists tryin' to preserve their own place as bigwigs at the expense of others. Then, as now, they got a lot of ordinary folks to go along with 'em based on "religious values" and other made-up hocus-pocus. Does a real disservice to religion and real honor and values.

 

Why should yeh expect it'd be any different now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah, hmmm...

 

I can't even figure out what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

For what it's worth, most intelligent contemporaries of their day believed Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein, eh? They were just reportin' da science based on the evidence.

 

Da folks who were denyin' reality and ignorin' or tryin' to suppress science were the same then as now. Well-monied entrenched interests and their lobbyists tryin' to preserve their own place as bigwigs at the expense of others. Then, as now, they got a lot of ordinary folks to go along with 'em based on "religious values" and other made-up hocus-pocus. Does a real disservice to religion and real honor and values.

 

Why should yeh expect it'd be any different now?

Beavah, some of the confusion is understandable. I inserted my post in a different thread and somehow it has moved to this one. Earlier I responded to one person and my response also showed up under the other member's name. Weird. I think the forums are still not quite 'ready for prime time'.

But I can detect occasional fixes (I think). BTW, this is NOT science based on the evidence, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...