Coronovirus III

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    18,011
    113
    I should restate my golden rule slightly...

    When a question is asked, be prepared that an assumption will be made that you were making an assumption and be willing to accept the consequences.

    Now do you see what I did there?

    What we "know" should always be iterative based on the "knowledge" of others, new or old.

    Some are willing to accept that.

    I am still willing to iterate my golden rule.

    :)

    Understood. I figured that if people implied motives for the question not intended, I could address those, which I have. If I don't ask questions, then I'm left with not fully knowing, or having to assume something. Maybe it's better to know nothing than to assume something, but it seems even better to me to ask and know.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,419
    113
    Gtown-ish
    When I was little, I asked my parents where my little brother came from.

    It was not the answer I was expecting.

    Well. Sometimes parents lie and say a stork brought you to their doorstep from the sea. I don't remember asking, but also I don't remember believing anything other than through birth.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,419
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I should restate my golden rule slightly...

    When a question is asked, be prepared that an assumption will be made that you were making an assumption and be willing to accept the consequences.

    Now do you see what I did there?

    What we "know" should always be iterative based on the "knowledge" of others, new or old.

    Some are willing to accept that.

    I am still willing to iterate my golden rule.

    :)

    Borrowing from another thread, that's accepting new information to update your understanding of the world. It's kinda rarer than rejecting the new information and not updating the worldview.
     

    hoosierdoc

    Freed prisoner
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 27, 2011
    25,987
    149
    Galt's Gulch
    People are going to start rioting. These governors are idiots and tyrants.
    Businesses need to open and people need to do as they please. They can't arrest, fine, or shoot all of us if we stick together.

    this is the closest I've ever felt to understanding what it would take to overthrow a government
     

    terrehautian

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 6, 2012
    3,496
    99
    Where ever my GPS says I am
    https://www.facebook.com/65323249091/posts/10157678196769092/?d=n

    The government says churches can’t assemble in person (I say violates separation of church and state) and not a word from the anti religion crowd. The second a church tries to continue paying payroll through a government payroll, separation of church and state. So which is it? If you’re for the second separation and say they can’t get funds, then the state has no power to regulate church services. The rules the government goes by are not applied to individual situations, they are blanketed in this separation.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    36,208
    149
    Valparaiso
    https://www.facebook.com/65323249091/posts/10157678196769092/?d=n

    The government says churches can’t assemble in person (I say violates separation of church and state) and not a word from the anti religion crowd. The second a church tries to continue paying payroll through a government payroll, separation of church and state. So which is it? If you’re for the second separation and say they can’t get funds, then the state has no power to regulate church services. The rules the government goes by are not applied to individual situations, they are blanketed in this separation.

    "Separation of church and state" is a poorly worded attempt to describe a constitutional principles....which never really meant that church and state had to be completely separate.
     

    singlesix

    Grandmaster
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 13, 2008
    7,358
    47
    Indianapolis, In
    that's absolute insanity for 95% of the state

    People are going to start rioting. These governors are idiots and tyrants.
    Businesses need to open and people need to do as they please. They can't arrest, fine, or shoot all of us if we stick together.

    No? Are there enough that will stick together? This pandemic tells me otherwise; at least up to this point.

    I don't think so. Too many scared of the unknown and unseen. Wrap it up in public good, save your grandparents, etc ... slow boil the frog.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,729
    113
    Indianapolis
    People are going to start rioting. These governors are idiots and tyrants.
    Businesses need to open and people need to do as they please. They can't arrest, fine, or shoot all of us if we stick together.

    Just got a carwash, a couple groceries, hardware store, fast food, gas... lot of people out and about. Actually looks semi-normal today.

    I don't think we're at the insurrection stage that you have in mind.
     

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    12,216
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    People are going to start rioting. These governors are idiots and tyrants.
    Businesses need to open and people need to do as they please. They can't arrest, fine, or shoot all of us if we stick together.

    You are right, but this is very difficult to pull off. It would take a huge turnout and "all of us" is nowhere near a large enough group at this point.
     

    bmbutch

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Aug 20, 2010
    2,801
    83
    Southern Indiana
    I don't think so. Too many scared of the unknown and unseen. Wrap it up in public good, save your grandparents, etc ... slow boil the frog.

    I believe you are correct.
    Based on my book of faces feed (stole that term from Churchmouse), those that I thought (based on their pre Covid posts) were hard-core Conservatives, but in the name of "safety" they are all onboard the "Gov't keeping us safe" train. I'm shocked @ how many of them love Beshear in KY, I personally am NOT a fan of his.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Just got a carwash, a couple groceries, hardware store, fast food, gas... lot of people out and about. Actually looks semi-normal today.

    I don't think we're at the insurrection stage that you have in mind.

    I think that is the insurrection.

    People will just go back to doing what they want/need to do.

    Calling the authorities' bluff.

    No LARPing. No strategification. Just doing capitalist stuff.

    ETA:
    Prohibition was the template. People still drank and ran 'shine.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    11,103
    113
    Avon
    "Separation of church and state" is a poorly worded attempt to describe a constitutional principles....which never really meant that church and state had to be completely separate.

    Saying that it is "poorly worded" is generous, at best.

    IIRC, the SCOTUS decision that used the term cited the Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists - a letter in which Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" exactly 180 degrees of how SCOTUS applied the term. In the original usage, the wall of separation was intended to prevent government interference in the church. In the SCOTUS usage (and application as precedent case law), the wall of separation was applied to restrict the influence of the church on the state.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    11,103
    113
    Avon
    I believe you are correct.
    Based on my book of faces feed (stole that term from Churchmouse), those that I thought (based on their pre Covid posts) were hard-core Conservatives, but in the name of "safety" they are all onboard the "Gov't keeping us safe" train. I'm shocked @ how many of them love Beshear in KY, I personally am NOT a fan of his.

    These are precisely the type of people Benjamin Franklin had in mind when he said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom