Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
72
-
55
-
42
-
32
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
22
-
15
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@coolcat6303 It's specifically because I'm a law abiding gun owner that this kind of nonsense does bother me. I've lived my life on the straight and narrow. I've committed no offense greater than traveling above the speed limit my entire life. What do I get for my responsible behavior? I get to jump through hoop after hoop, having to prove time and time again that I am an upstanding citizen.
Meanwhile, the only people these laws don't bother are those who don't want to own guns and, of course, criminals. See, neither you nor the guy who might shoot you one day is all that inconvenienced by these laws.
- He's going to steal or buy a stolen gun.
- You're going to continue to think the police will get there in time.
- He's going to show up, rob you, and shoot you.
- You're going to die.
- He's going to run away.
- The police are going to show up eventually and write up a report.
- They'll run the serial number (if your killer leaves the gun behind, which he probably won't) and come up with the name of some guy who had his gun stolen five years prior.
- Your case will go unsolved.
- Your family will go public, demanding politicians enact more useless laws.
- Your killer will laugh at the next anti-gun press conference ABC airs, while loading yet another stolen gun.
- I'm going to be standing in line, waiting for a psych evaluation, a physical, and an IQ test to prove, yet again, that I should be allowed to buy a gun (even though I already have guns and have never harmed anyone).
Thanks but I don't think I'll be subscribing to your brand of "logic" any time soon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vie2210 That's where the car came to a stop. If you're a professional driver, you should know that cars don't just stop dead in their tracks when something hits their windshield. Plus, you can see from the damage to the front of the car that it went had bounced off of at least a couple of those concrete dividers. I think you're stuck on the idea that everyone has time to hit the brakes. That's not the case.
A car traveling at 65+ mph can coast a very long way, if something doesn't bring it to a stop (which going by the condition of the front of the car, something did). Furthermore, your anecdote about "there's fences" doesn't take into account those which are in disrepair (you know, that infrastructure issue you mentioned earlier) or those that simply haven't yet been fenced (yes, they do exist). Yes, this is speculation but then, that's all either of us has been doing.
Now look at 0:17 into the video. They're standing under an overpass, inspecting it. Why would they do that? Whether it was because someone threw the concrete off of it or it chunked off and fell by itself, the car would have had to have passed under it to get hit. Your latest reply actually goes against your original conspiracy theory. Now I have to ask: If the car was nowhere near an overpass, got hit by a piece of concrete and came to a dead stop (so hard that both front wheels were torn loose) where does your new theory say the concrete came from? Space? A special concrete airplane?
Or is it possible that someone chucked a piece of concrete off the overpass seen in the video, hit the windshield, killed the driver and the car kept moving forward (as they do) until it had wrecked its front end enough to come to a stop where it appears at around 0:40 in the video? I have an easier time believing that than whatever it is your new implications are pointing to.
2
-
@vie2210 First, that's not a newer vehicle. Second, the airbag sensors are in the front, rear and sides of a vehicle, near common impact zones. I could throw bowling balls through your windshield at you all day and it would never trigger the airbags or (on newer cars) the brake lockup feature.
As for the idea that a piece of debris - traveling in the same general direction as this car - could fall off a truck and through the windshield (without a bounce) with enough force to kill the driver runs pretty counterintuitive to the laws of physics. A body in motion stays in motion. If they were both travelling, say, West at relatively equal speeds, the impact would be at nearly 0 mph. He would have to have been hauling ass past the truck for it to have even made it all the way through the windshield (they're laminated).
As for your little snipe at the end, your reading comprehension is lacking. At no point did I even imply that "some drunk teenager did it, open and shut." I presented a plausible alternative to your paranoid ramblings. You pressed me on it and I backed it up - whereas you folded on your claims. Never once did I say "This is what happened." I have no idea what happened. I just know that there are much better odds of some scenarios than others. Your latest scenario is at least getting within the realm of possible, so I applaud you for the effort. However, that wasn't a real forensic hypothesis. It was spit-balling out of frustration of having your other theories dismantled (with your own help). At least we're off the "It's a vast conspiracy!" nonsense. Baby steps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
hellasow b Um, you might want to rethink your "guns of their time" stance. At the time, the 2nd amendment was also protecting private citizens' right to own cannons. I really don't think you want to go there.
Anyway, your premise is false, regardless. "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." "The people" had the same firearms available to them as any modern (for the time) army. Do you really think the founders intended for the militia to continue using muskets when any invading force was upgrading their arms? They knew about things like the Puckle gun at the time the Constitution was penned. They didn't add any clauses that said "But if guns get, like, really powerful and stuff, the People totally shouldn't have those." Why? Because they were building a Country based on individual freedoms. They fought to get out from under the thumb of an overreaching government. The Second Amendment was put in pace so that no American would ever have to submit to one again.
So yeah, I'm pretty sure they'd have been cool with AKs and ARs. You really shouldn't try to argue for more Federal regulations by invoking the founding fathers. They'd have probably shot you for treason. Just sayin'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PwnyGOD Actually, I wasn't referring to that and it's the first I'm seeing of it. That was about some interview. I'm talking about a speech I watched her give after one of the mass shootings. If I find it, I'll post a link but I assure you, I have no interest in the NRA or their shtick.
As for her policies, they're pretty clear. She wants the Heller decision reversed. She's made no bones about that. The Heller decision determined that the second amendment was not simply protecting a State's Right to a militia but also the individual Right to keep and bear arms for home/self defense. Now, if that decision is reversed, then suddenly, we no longer have a Right to defend ourselves with firearms. If that's the case, then we have no "need" for anything other than hunting rifles and shotguns (nobody hunts with a handgun). She has been sure to say on many occasions that she has no problem with guns...for hunting. So, even if I can't find the video of the speech, it's not exactly necessary. She doesn't want to reverse Heller because she thinks we should be able to have the types of guns people carry for self defense. Can you really justify her desire to take away our Right to defend ourselves with a firearm as "common sense" gun control? That goes way beyond background checks and registration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacques9307 What rights don't US minorities have that they had 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, etc years ago? In what way is the US more xenophobic now than it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s and how is that possible, given that the Overton Window has moved steadily to the Left throughout that entire time period?
Given the givens, either the Left is truly racist...or you're full of crap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you're unvaccinated...a Winter of severe illness and death..."
Really? Are you sure? The top symptoms in the vast majority of both vaccinated and unvaccinated, basically read like the label on a bottle of Robitussin. Runny nose, cough (mild), scratchy throat, headache, fatigue, body aches...the basic cold/flu symptoms. They don't even seem to be losing their taste/smell at any measurable rate, like with the others variants.
Look, I get it. This is your last chance to scare people into getting their government-funded pharmaceuticals, before the cat is out of the bag. How many shares of Pfizer do you own at this point? Or is it simply that they've offered you a high paying job if you manage to keep this going for another X years? Either way, you're all done. People are seeing the numbers. Omicron spreads ridiculously fast and hits with all the force of a wet spaghetti noodle in the vast majority of cases.
This is our Winter of transformation. Virtually everyone is getting COVID this time around and virtually everyone is going to survive it. By this time next year, any variant that's left will be a seasonal cold. We're witnessing the beginning of the end, which is why you folks are all Hellfire and brimstone over it. Your control is slipping away before your eyes, along with your kickbacks. Too bad, so sad. You'll have to find some other way to scare people into giving you more power and money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Now do the same poll but ask them if they even know what Roe v. Wade decided and what the prevailing law of the land on the subject of abortion is (hint: it's not Roe v. Wade). Most Americans who are asked that question think Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to choose. It's not. It declares a woman's right to privacy over her medical records. That, of course, is a ridiculous premise, given that you can't legally have doctor assisted suicide in most of the US, even thought that, too, is a medical procedure. It's made more moot by the current trend of requiring people to prove vaccination status (medical information) to non-government and non-medical personnel.
A majority don't want Roe v. Wade overturned because they have been convinced by the media and the talking heads on the Left that doing so would make abortion illegal in the US. It wouldn't. It would simply return the right to make legislation about abortions to the individual States. Then, just like with anything States have authority over, they would create different laws for each State. The blue States would still have blue abortion laws, the red States would have red abortion laws and, as always, the purple States would have a lot of debate on the subject. Those who don't support their State laws would mostly move to other States, just like they do now. Life would go on.
P.S. The Supreme Court Justices are not Party affiliates. Not sure why you're talking about the GOP.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your implication seems to be that one must care about all life equally in order to be "Pro-Life." I would argue that is untrue. For instance, I feel that a person's life is valuable. I care about that life insofar as I feel they have a right to live their life. However, if said person does something directly opposed to maintaining their life, that does decrease its value in my eyes, as it clearly does not mean that much to them (and since one's own life should matter most to one's self, I have no reason to hold it in higher esteem).
Non-human lives hold varying degrees of value to me. Granted, all living things presumably care about their own existence. I just don't happen to hold them on the same plane as human life. I consider that fair, since most species on earth hold their own species' existence higher than that of other species. I have empathy for lesser lives, in that I don't believe in torture or inhumanity of lesser creatures, if it can reduced or avoided. Yes, I do eat meat and feel that it is necessary. Yes, I do prefer to eat meat I have harvested myself from wild game. Why? Because I feel that a good life followed by a quick death is better than a miserable life followed by any type of death. Furthermore, I have yet to have anyone explain to me how a well placed bullet is somehow a worse death than disease, starvation, or being torn apart by coyotes (which are the leading causes of death in most game animals).
Now, on to the issue at hand: Abortion. The way I see it, at some point between fertilization and birth, an egg becomes a person. We quibble back and forth about when that being becomes a being, mainly because there is not a definitive answer. Oh, people claim to know the answer but really, they're going with the opinion that best fits their position. There is no scientific consensus on the beginning of life. There really isn't even consensus on viability, since that is a moving target. As technology gets better, viability becomes possible earlier. There is no easy answer to when a person becomes a person. That leads to my philosophy on the subject (which is just one more voice in a sea of voices, all shouting out on the subject).
If a person's life is valuable (which, I feel it is) and we can't determine when that life begins, then we simply shouldn't...for now. Why risk making the mistake of ending human life when we don't have to? Why not allow them to become people, with their own will, who can then determine for themselves the value of their lives? Why not give them the choice? Their mother and father had choices? They had four of them: Abstinence, contraception, adoption, and parenthood. Are four choices not enough for the 99%+ who are having abortions after consensual sex with non-family members? Why do they get five and the other person involved doesn't get any? That seems incredibly imbalanced to me.
Now, if at some point down the road, they come up with the answer to when life begins, we could definitely revisit the subject. In fact, at that point, I would happily back legislation that allows abortions before the point of life. I believe that all rights belong to the people, except in the case that said rights interfere with those of others (the "Your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins" philosophy). The problem here is that with abortions, they're indiscriminately swinging their arms and not even concerning themselves with whether they're hitting someone else's face.
Sorry for the lengthy reply but I felt your comment deserved a thoughtful response.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know, I've been hearing this argument since the 80s. "More Sex Ed and contraception means fewer teen pregnancies." Why, then hasn't that been true? Sex Ed has expanded beyond high school and into middle school. Contraception is available all over the place and is free at any women's clinic. Yet somehow, teens are still getting pregnant. In fact, it has been happening more and more. Most of the schools in the seven different districts I went to were installing or had installed day cares to keep teen moms in school. Now, they're talking about putting one in my son's old middle school. MIDDLE SCHOOL. Twelve and thirteen year olds having kids at a high enough rate to necessitate day cares specifically for them at schools. Meanwhile, abortions have been readily available and are being performed by bus load every day.
Somehow, it doesn't seem like Sex Ed is working. Maybe the idea of telling kids "We know you're going to have sex and lots of it, so go ahead and put on this rubber sensation stopper before you do!" is the wrong tact. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to do more than just pass out balloons and hope for the best. Perhaps even focus on responsibility, reality, and expected behavior, rather than pretending that every teen is going to be rebellious. Will it stop all teen pregnancies? Of course not. Can it possibly be any worse than what we're doing now? I highly doubt it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@allendean9807 Okay, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. You're saying:
- A fetus is not a life, so doesn't have rights.
- A mother is a life, so does have rights.
- A mother has to carry the burden of either raising or putting a child up for adoption, so she is the only one whose opinion matters.
- It's not okay to limit a woman's "right" to an abortion for the sake of the fetus.
- We don't have the proper systems in place to care for unwanted children.
- People who are pro-life are unilaterally opposed to said systems (even though the last March for Life rally had a fair share of Liberals and Progressives in attendance on the pro-life side).
- If said systems were in place, it would then be okay to violate a woman's "right" to an abortion because the kids would have easier lives than under present circumstances.
I highlighted the two important bits. Abortion is either a right or it's not. Talking about accommodations as though they are the deciding factor as to what the government does and does not have the authority to control is a flawed argument. Either a woman always has the right to abort a child, or it's merely a medical treatment that can be regulated by the government. It simply cannot be both.
Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution. Let me explain:
- In more than 99% of cases, women seeking abortions have already had choices they made. Those choices lead to pregnancy because at the end of the day, there is only one natural act that can lead to that result. Cause and effect are pretty straightforward in this matter and Sex Ed starts in middle school for most people. It's an informed decision.
- A debate on when something is a fetus, a baby, a toddler, etc is unnecessary. It's a life from the time it starts developing and it's a human because humans don't sometimes create penguins or toaster ovens in their wombs. So, it's a human life.
- If someone knowingly chooses the one act that creates a human life and then said act is successful, nobody should be shocked or upset about that.
- If a human life matters at all, the circumstances of its upbringing are secondary to its fundamental right to life, itself. Yes, it's good to take care of those in need. Yes, we should definitely be doing better. No, that doesn't mean that anyone who is to be born into bad circumstances should have their life forfeited, "just in case" they might have a hard life. Plenty of people have started out at the bottom. The vast majority don't kill themselves. I take that to mean they'd rather be alive - regardless of how their mother may have felt about them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1