Disqus - Latest Comments for nicolesharp0921

Re: How to Deal With “Truthers”

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:24:43 -0000

Threats of violence = tough New Yorker. Fantastic logic. I love it.

Re: How to Deal With “Truthers”

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:21:15 -0000

That guy is classy! Nothing like threats of violence in an attempt to defend the government! Disgusting. Although I do not speak for either side as to if 911 was an inside job or not, as I have not researched or read enough to be at all informative, our government is not a government that we can trust. And it's people like the guy in this video that inhibit us, as a united society, to stand up to our government and stop them from ruining our country.

Thanks for sharing Andrew :)

Re: Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

nicolesharp0921 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:46:05 -0000

So, "thinking for yourself in the modern world" means taking away the rights and liberties of our people? Being in agreement with our founding fathers and the decisions that they made means that we do not think for ourselves?

"I don't have anyone who is actively seeking to rob, beat or murder me. Maybe that's because I haven't given anyone reason to, or maybe its because the police and military are doing their job well."

Or maybe it's because we currently have the right to bear arms. But let's go with your idea and take that right away, and then we'll see what happens.

Re: Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

nicolesharp0921 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:11:02 -0000

1) So in YOUR world you believe that as our society grows and changes we need to TAKE AWAY rights and liberties of the people in order to adapt to the modern world? I agree entirely with you about technology change requiring us to have to make appropriate changes; not following along with something that is outdates. However, I do not agree that we have any reason to take away rights and liberties in order to adapt to changing times. My point is that I AGREE with what the founding fathers and their reasons behind the Constitution. I think that if we had a government who actually stood by the Constitution our society would function better as a whole. We should not be going in a direction that takes more rights and liberties away from the American People, which is obviously the direction you want to go in.

2) Ethan answered this in the best way I see possible. Just because we have a diverse nation does not mean that a majority cannot create tyranny. I urge you to educate yourself on tyranny, as it does not appear that you understand that it is a real possibility in the future, especially when we are on the track of taking more and more rights away from the American People.

3) I would put more value into what you say if Daisy Yang’s comments were not what you put value in. You must have missed her comments about Boston Crème Pie and wiping someone’s blood up off the floor, prior to that comment being taken down. Her comments were sick, twisted, and made no sense to any of the discussions we were having. I will not respond to any questions pertaining to Daisy Yang, as, in case you missed this, her response to her comments being taken down was to post the word “penis” on one of the pages. This is a person whose opinion you value?

Your question about plastic explosives is ridiculous. I think it is obvious that I believe that having a gun is the best method of protection.

4) You have said this over and over again, questioning that the “uncoordinated American public would stand a chance against an organized US military.” So your answer to that is to TAKE AWAY any possibility of being able to defend ourselves? It’s simple: If our right to bear arms is taken away from us, then it will be known that we are disarmed and definitely unable to protect ourselves. If we continue to have our right to bear arms, then it will be known that we have the ability to protect ourselves.

5) Joining the military is not the answer. That’s a similar mentality to joining a gang so that the gang does not hurt you. Do not get your panties in a bunch, I am not comparing our military to a gang, I’m just saying that I’m not going to join the military for just the reason of wanting to protect myself. I already have an “active place” in the government and plan on becoming even more involved to try and make sure that we can retain our rights.

I’m just not quite sure where in your list there is an argument that trumps my argument for why we should have a right to bear arms. Your only real argument is that you don’t think that tyranny is a real possibility, and, therefore, not something we need to plan for or protect ourselves against. Other than that, I don’t see any real argument here.

Re: Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

Ryan_W — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:16:32 -0000

Here are a couple of thoughts I have on why your arguments don't work:

1. Quoting our founding fathers for advice about gun control is almost entirely irrelevant. Would you follow a strict interpretation of Henry Ford's ideas on Model T auto safety in the world of the modern automobile? No, technological change requires you to think for yourself, for today. Were our founding fathers that much more brilliant than us and are their ideas more relevant to us today than our own ideas? No, if you take anything from our founding fathers, it should be that these were men who defined themselves and thought for themselves. We can do that today too.

2. Unlike the Nazis, Soviets or any other country that massacred its own people, our country is highly diversified and we have a government that promotes diversity. It would be easier for me to agree with you if our government was openly advocating persecution or hostility to any particular groups in this country. This is an important distinction between us and failed regimes of the past.

3. No one here has offered any practical limits on what they think defines "protecting oneself." I think at one point that daisy yang poster was ranting about legalizing plastic explosives. Would legalizing plastic explosive allow the citizenry to protect themselves in a greater way? Probably, but putting plastic explosives the hands of the common man would probably introduce many more problems than it would solve.

4. I'll bring back up the idea from my other post: Do you really think an uncoordinated American public would stand a chance against an organized US military? Someone posited the idea that military would become demoralized if the citizenry fought back. Wouldn't this give Army people more justification for what they were doing? It seems easier to feel bad about hurting innocent people than it is about people who are shooting at you.

5. If you still feel concerned about the military or government persecuting you, why not join the military? One thing we can learn from the civil rights movement is that it is harder for a government to persecute minorities if minorities have an active place in government.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/p...

Re: Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

nicolesharp0921 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:20:36 -0000

I have 2 quotes by Dr. Ron Paul regarding the Second Amendment that I like:

"More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now."

This above quote was actually exactly what I was thinking of and wanting to get across to Ryan W earlier. Our founding fathers wanted to protect Americans then and in the future. Tyranny is never a far cry. Ron Paul is a brilliant writer and speaker; it's generally his speechs/writings that come into my mind throughout these various topics, as I'm not sure there is anyone that can get an important mesage across better than him.

Another of his quotes:

"...the Constitution’s Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk."

I agree. If we do not even have the right to protect ourselves, what other rights even matter before that?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:01:11 -0000

Yes I would, maybe I'll even write about this whole right to bear arms issue.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:44:29 -0000

Additionally, do you understand though, that even if we had a "list" of people that were the only ones who could own a gun, that the people who are committing crimes with guns are still going to have access to the same gun supply that they had before, as most of the people committing crimes with guns are obtaining those guns illegally. So, like I stated before, the criminals will still have their guns, but us law abiding citizens will not have the protection we deserve/desire.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

riseuprochester — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:32:35 -0000

Nicole, would you like to become a contributor on the site? You could start posting articles almost immediately. I believe Ryan is considering becoming one.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:30:02 -0000

There are several layers to my belief: personal protection at a community level and protection from the government in the event that I needed it. Unlikely or not, if history teaches us anything...

But you're right, since YOU feel personally incapable of protecting yourself, the right to own a gun should be taken away from the rest of us and only given to a list of people deemed deserving of the right.

Unlike you, I do not want to place my fate in the hands of others. This is a right that our founding fathers believed we should have and I am in full agreement with them.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:03:10 -0000

So you're positing that in the unlikely even the US Army were to start persecuting American citizens, that you think American citizens would be able to defend themselves and win?

Our country has the second largest active military in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...) and is probably the best funded, best trained army in the world. No offense, but do you really think average citizens, armed with whatever would stand a chance?

I fully support gun ownership by small at risk businesses. If smaller, vulnerable stores aren't armed I think they should be. Why? I only really endorse gun ownership for those who have strong incentives to keep me alive: police, store owners, military personnel. None of these people could benefit by killing me.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:37:55 -0000

I'm sure when they see your comment about the Boston Creme Pie and wiping up someone's blood off the floor they will thoroughly understand.

The arguments against your opinion were clear and consise, then your comments became sick and twisted - there is no need to continue a debate with someone who, once unable to continue their side of the argument, responds with nasty semantics. It appears all the contributors welcome debates, just not the kind of childish debates you want to have.

Re: New Rules for Commenting

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:56:56 -0000

Not surprising!

Re: New Rules for Commenting

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:54:24 -0000

There is a distinctive difference between the right to bear arms and violence.
Maybe you are "not bright enough to understand that."

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

riseuprochester — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:13:12 -0000

Thank you, Nicole. That's all I've ever been trying to say here.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:10:39 -0000

Ryan,

I'm trying to understand you; is it your belief that we should not have the right to own firearms?

I can assure you that if our right to firearms is taken away, those committing crimes with these firearms will still have firearms; it will be those of us who are law abiding citizens that will no longer have the option to protect ourselves. One of the first things that Hitler did when he rose to power was take away the people's right to own firearms. Therefore, he took away the people's right to protect themselves. They had to rely on the Nazi regime to protect them, and as history shows us, that did not work out well for a lot of people. This is definitely not the direction I want our society to go in.

Why do you believe that most store owners are armed? I am a social worker within the community of Rochester and can say with much confidence that most store owners are not armed.

It appears that your mentality is of the "guns kill people" belief. I, on the other hand, am of the "people kill people" belief. There are a variety of ways that a "delinquent or mentally unstable" person could hurt someone, having the right to firearms as a society does make that any more likely.