<br><br>Even with the guns gone, the insanity causing gun violence will express itself in other ways. Our society is in need of serious healing, rather.<br>Thanks, Hearthstone.<br><br>
Our nation desperately needs gun control now, ASAP. Please lend your support by signing the petition below. Thank you!
I don't think we can/have to find the ONE most significant action--we can sign a petition to outlaw violent video games AND one for banning assault weapons. AND for more mental health...
(I would really recommend the movie "Happy" [available on netflix]--a wonderful science/human story/international look at what raises our individual and societal contentment)
kathy
I would rather sign a petition to outlaw violent video games.....
Conly
12-17-2012, 01:17 PM
Control bullets. A gun without bullets is just a hunk of metal or an antique on the wall.. So you want to go target shooting ? take your gun to a licensed range, Buy ten rounds, shoot your targets. Then take your casings back to the person at the counter, trade them in. also you have to turn in any and all unused rounds as well as spent casings before before you leave the facility..
Or maybe you are a "Hunter" (boar, Deer, Bear) How many rounds do you truly need.? If you are a real "hunter" you wont use 6 rounds in a day. Buy your ammo that morning turn in the spent casings and all unused rounds at the end of the day. Or Mr swat comes knocking on your door.
If the Gov. can lock you up for one Pot seed then they can do it for possessing a live round too!
But if you really want New Gun Laws then lets start tossing hand grenades into NRA meetings.
Ok. tongue & cheek aside...
I speak as a survivor of gun violence. When I was 18 my stepfather killed my mother in her sleep, then did himself with a 357. And yes we did take his guns away from him 2 years earlier.
podfish
12-17-2012, 02:48 PM
while we're at it, let's outlaw baby boo-boo or whatever that reality show is. Or better yet, reality TV altogether. More people are made stupid by watching those than are made violent from video games.
I would rather sign a petition to outlaw violent video games.....
podfish
12-17-2012, 02:54 PM
while we're at it, let's outlaw baby boo-boo or whatever that reality show is. Or better yet, reality TV altogether. More people are made stupid by watching those than are made violent from video games.
by the way, I don't really mean it.
outlawing ownership of some kinds of weaponry isn't really the same category as outlawing expression of ideas, which games, movies, and other non-tangible products really are. There are a lot of ideas that are bad, and lead to bad behavior, but I don't see how outlawing them is possible or helpful.
For example, the tragedy in question here seems to be (at least by early reports, if they're true at all) an outcome of the fear of governmental collapse that's cultivated by the right-wing press. Tempting as it is to try to control that kind of entertainment, it can't work - already there are a lot of people who think the government has somehow triggered this to impose more limits on freedom. You're not hearing a lot on these lines yet, but my prediction is that it's going to be a growing reaction.
Peace Voyager
12-18-2012, 02:15 PM
I would rather sign a petition to outlaw violent video games.....
California did approve a voter initiative for that (in 2005 I think it was). The US Supreme overturned it. This is why I support State's rights over Federal rule. Let's recall the unconstitutional judges once and for all!
handy
12-19-2012, 12:30 PM
Comment from a similar thread on another site seems to nail it:
"So another mass-murder conducted by a product of government schools, in a government school, under the government-recommended/mandated care of a government-employed/licensed shrink, on government-approved and government-promoted mind-altering drugs, in a government-mandated weapon-free zone, protected by a government agency the government claims 'serves and protects' (though it is incapable of doing so). Clearly the problem is guns."
handy
12-19-2012, 12:42 PM
Why the Government and Mainstream Media Celebrate Mass School Shootings (and Secretly Want Them To Continue)
by Mike Adams
Natural News (https://www.naturalnews.com)
Recently by Mike Adams: Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and China now More Free Than America in Notable Ways (https://www.lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m25.1.html)
</tbody>
Adam Lanza's armed massacre of young students in Newton, Conn. is being celebrated by the mainstream media. It's also being celebrated by Obama administration officials who publicly shed a tear but behind the scenes are no doubt high-fiving each other over the opportunity to push their agenda of citizen disarmament.
The media celebrates mass shootings because they make for great ratings. People tune in to watch the horrifying scenes and share in the grief. This means eyeballs on the screen and that translates into ad revenue for the TV news networks.
Over 33,000 Americans are killed each year in automobile accidents, but those deaths warrant virtually no media coverage. Why? Because individual auto accidents just aren't interesting enough to attract a bunch of eyeballs to the screen. But a mass killing... well, gee, that's interesting to view in a horrifying "train wreck" kind of way. So that gets the air time.
The media glorifies psychopathic killers
What's even more horrifying than the massacre itself is the way the mainstream media now glorifies mass shooters, turning them into cult heroes and even ranking their body counts as a sort of achievement score. The Newtown shooting currently holds the "high score" according to the mainstream media, and they have no problem pushing this kind of junk journalism as long as their teleprompter-reading reporters appear to be convincingly saddened for the cameras.
Never mind the fact that such local shootings (https://www.naturalnews.com/shootings.html) are largely irrelevant to the lives of Americans, especially given the far greater relevancy of issues like the Federal Reserve's debt creation monopoly, the deadly body count of prescription drugs (100,000+ Americans a year), the mass fluoride poisoning of the American people and so on. Why did the media (https://www.naturalnews.com/media.html) spend hours broadcasting O.J. Simpson's white bronco slow-speed car chase on the LA freeways a few years ago? Because it was bizarre, not because it was relevant news. O.J.'s life is irrelevant to almost everyone other than O.J.
With school shootings (https://www.naturalnews.com/school_shootings.html), you see, the killer victimizes the children once, and then the media victimizes them a second time.
"Never waste a good crisis"
Nowhere is the celebration of school shootings more amplified than in Washington D.C. where the federal government desperately wants to disarm the American people. The higher the body count of children in a given mass shooting, the more "moral authority" D.C. politicians will claim to have in destroying the rights of all Americans by demanding they turn in their guns.
Right now, there's a massive call among traitors like Bloomberg to gut the Second Amendment and completely disarm perfectly innocent American citizens who have done nothing wrong (and are actually upstanding citizens who PREVENT crime).
Remember: Millions of privately-armed Americans are off-duty cops and returning veterans who have been trained by the government to carry weapons and use them to stop crimes. But people like Obama and Bloomberg want to condemn them all as "potential criminals" and strip away their constitutional right to carry a firearm. This is the idiocy of the Washington agenda to ban all guns from private citizens.
The more mass shootings occur, the louder the call becomes for "gun control" which actually doesn't work but it's a convenient scapegoat for those who don't know any better.
This is precisely why Eric Holder and the Obama administration staged Operation Fast & Furious (https://www.naturalnews.com/Fast_and_Furious.html) as a way to put guns directly into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, with the hope that those guns would multiply the number of violent shootings in states like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California.
The plan worked: Those guns were used in violent murders in the USA. But Eric Holder got caught, and now the Obama administration is busy trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug.
School shootings are secretly welcomed by the Obama administration because they create the necessary emotional impact that will result in irrational public support for citizen disarmament schemes. This is why the federal government keeps pushing for school "gun free zones." (https://www.naturalnews.com/038356_gun_free_zones_schools_concealed_carry.html) Such signs posted outside schools advertise those schools as easy targets for psychopathic killers. It's almost like posting a sign that says, "All killers welcomed here!"
Big Pharma also welcomes school shootings
The pharmaceutical industry is at least partially responsible for many of these shootings, as it is their own drugs which cause young males to become violent and detached. The vast majority of shooters over the last two decades have all been taking prescription medications such as antidepressant drugs (which are known to cause violent, suicidal behavior).
But the real benefit to Big Pharma from the school shootings is that such events traumatize other children who can then be "diagnosed" with fictitious psychiatric disorders (https://www.naturalnews.com/038322_DSM-5_psychiatry_false_diagnosis.html) which are invented solely for the purpose of selling more prescription medications to children who don't need them.
Why school shootings will be allowed to continue
School shootings, you see, benefit the media, the drug companies and the power base of the federal government. This is precisely why such shootings will be allowed to continue.
The solution to stopping all school shootings is ridiculously simple: allow principles and school office personnel to carry concealed (https://www.naturalnews.com/038356_gun_free_zones_schools_concealed_carry.html). This would allow them to save the lives of children by halting psychopathic killers with lethal force.
And take down those delusional "gun free zone" signs. Posting a sign does not stop a psychopathic killer. If you want to physically stop such a killer, you need something called return fire.
Watch the video: How to stop a massacre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=epZod2qyyN4
Reprinted with permission from Natural News (https://www.naturalnews.com).
December 19, 2012
Mike Adams is a natural health author and award-winning journalist. He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers' guides, and books on topics like health and the environment. He is the editor of Natural News (https://www.naturalnews.com).
The NRA has spoken. A cop in every school. Get rid of a teacher, hire a gun. Stand a guard the door so he can be the first to receive 20 bullets from an AR-15 and perhaps give kids a chance to hide under their desks, as we did with H-bomb drills. Give kids their daily reminder to stay properly terrorized: maybe they’ll put more heart into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Above all, don’t make a dent in the arms trade. Gun control would be a job-killer. The NRA represents responsible hunters, hobbyists, and family protectors, plus a vast industry devoted solely to the firepower of money. Spin the outcry into a hero myth: each one of us packing heat, with a self-image as action hero swiftly dropping to our knees in the movie theatre or shopping mall, cameras rolling, planting one expert slug between the baddie’s eyes.
They’re wise. Each time the outcry goes up, so does the sale of guns. It’s a winning formula.
“An armed society is a polite society,” we are told by those who have only our safety at heart. And so clearly America is on its way to being the most serene, peaceful society in history. 30,000 deaths a year is a small price to pay for that. Imagine the rage-filled tailgater made placid as a lamb in the sights of your pink plastic equalizer.
The rage, the sense of impotence, of a hopeless future, of being not a citizen but simply a consumer of toxic snacks, amusements, cock-teasing raised to epic dimensions, of being utterly fucking alone in a vast crowd of slavering Christmas shoppers -- all this will vanish if we put a cop in every school and a Glock in every purse.
Gun control isn’t the answer, any more than insulin injections are the answer to diabetes. It’s a band-aid on the suppurations of a late-stage syphilitic who still declares he’s the healthiest guy on the planet. But until we find some way to cut back on the sugar and the spirochetes, we’d better stock up on the band-aids and the insulin.
Cheers--
Conrad
Valley Oak
12-22-2012, 12:02 PM
The long and hard fight for gun control is worth the struggle. There are many who are against gun control despite the 20 murdered children in Connecticut.
People against gun control should travel to Connecticut and spend Christmas Day with the families of those murdered children and explain to them, face to face, why they prefer that guns continue to be abundantly available to any nut-case so that this tragedy can be repeated indefinitely. Americans who argue against gun control prefer to see more murdered children than to provide a solution. Shame on them. They are being astonishingly ignorant, arrogant, insensitive, and ideologically deluded beyond belief.
.
19946
.
19947
Hotspring 44
12-30-2012, 11:42 PM
It seems that this post belongs more on this thread than the one the question was in...
...This is an answer to a question that Edward Mendoza asked on another thread:
What do you think should be implemented for "gun control" laws? (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?95166-Time-to-stop-exploiting-children-killed-in-Connecticut&p=161145#post161145)
I will have to think clearly and evaluate the present day real life circumstance we have and formulate my answer which will take quite some time.
The answer is a rather complex one to answer because of all the hi-powered semi-automatic rifles and ammo that already exists in the possession of millions of what are now,the vast majority of people that are law abiding US citizens, many of which may not willingly give-up their guns and ammo.
Will they have their guns and ammo Grandfathered-in?... ...What about inheritance?... ...Will there end up being a class division between those that "legally" own hi-powered semi-automatic rifles and ammo and those that will be prohibited from possessing them simply because they don't already possess any prior to the possible (likely) upcoming ban/s?...
...That is one thing to seriously consider particularly during certain situations like a prolonged natural disaster such as a devastating hurricane, floods, earthquakes, ARC Storm (https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/) that have the potential to have effects that can linger for longer than most people and their life's supplies can endure that have the potential aftermath of people being in the circumstance of fending for themselves in some of the more remote or neglected locations.
Hurricane Catrina and the 3 New Orleans Police Convicted In Post-Katrina Killing, Burning Of Body (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/3-nopd-convicted-henry-glover_n_794782.html) is one example of how things can (temporarily) become beyond the federal governments control and that the ones that are the 'legally armed class' "citizens", some of who may have in theory sworn to "serve and protect" may not, or even worse, actually do harm with their hi-powered semi-automatic (or government issue automatic) rifles and maybe even government issue armor piercing ammo etc.
What I am saying is in many rural places (but not all obviously) (armed) neighbors IE: "the people" with reasonable morals have a better ability to police and secure their homes in the short term than certain officials can or do.
I think that there is a very fine and sometimes blurred line that separates us from tyranny and reasonable amount of liberty. The second amendment was most likely put there to reasonably preserve the first amendment amongst other liberties.
Civil Rights as we now know it now is unfortunately more fragile and in danger of being lost in times of national anger or panic.
Our Civil Rights can be picked apart bit-by-bit if we aren't very careful of who we elect and what we tell our law makers we want.
Besides all that, what about non semi-automatic guns and the fact that some people live beyond any reasonable response time for law enforcement to help until after the fact?...
...Home invasions don't only happen where the response time is within 10 minutes (usually 3 minuets in metro areas). Some anti-gun extremists want to have all guns banned 100%. That is not who I want to have in the discussion because that kind of extreme measure is unreasonable. I also don't want anyone that wants an armed privatized militia with all kinds of modern weaponry in the discussion either for the same reason.
I know first-hand that a time of panic or anger is not when people are in a balanced enough state of mind to make long lasting absolute decisions even for themselves... ...not to mention the whole country.
We don't want to create more harm than good and use an unreasonable form of new laws and, as example: end up using paramilitary forces to use violence ("if necessary") in our neighborhoods to confiscate guns, ammo and particular accessories like large capacity clips from peoples homes at large which would in my assessment be somewhat widespread if enforced nationally and could be more tragic in the long run than what we have seen in our history since the Civil War.
If any new law is to be made it should be carefully phased-in if it has any outright bans on already existing things that people already inevitably have.
Gun Control is a very serious subject that should be reckoned with and has potential to go very wrong without careful analysis of the reality on the ground, so...
...I am not saying don't change the laws but whatever changes take place have to be reasonably doable without creating a perception or reality of tyranny otherwise I fear that being unreasonable with "gun control" that major civil unrest in the process could unravel into a worse situation than we would think.
Shandi
12-31-2012, 05:58 AM
Predictable behavior!
https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/8107/201206081330.png
Sales rise at North Bay gun shops
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121227/COMMUNITY/121229639
By PAUL PAYNE (https://www.petaluma360.com/apps/pbcs.dll/personalia?ID=PPayne&category=community)
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 5:58 p.m.
Fear that stricter gun laws may be looming in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting has triggered a sustained spike in sales at North Coast gun shops.
Concern that President Barack Obama might crack down on the sale of certain assault rifles has emptied store shelves as customers snap up firearms and accessories they think might soon be unavailable to them.
That sentiment led James Lunsford of Sebastopol to a Cotati gun shop Thursday, where he filled out paperwork to purchase a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol, similar to one of the weapons carried by the man who killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School Dec. 14.
“I'm worried the government is going to restrict us from purchasing firearms,” said Lunsford, 22, a hospital technician. “People have a right to own tools that are there to protect you.”
Store owner Dave Baker said he was experiencing the biggest rush since Obama became president four years ago.
People are buying all kinds of firearms and he's sold out of the sought-after AR-15 assault-type weapon. It was one of three guns carried by Newtown, Conn. shooter Adam Lanza and was mentioned in the president's recent speech as the possible subject of a ban.
Baker, the owner of B2 Enterprises on Redwood Drive, said he sold his last military-style rifle about a week-and-a-half ago.
“All you have to do is tell people that they can't have it and they'll want it,” he said as a steady stream of customers filed into his shop. “They are nervous about having their rights taken away from them.”
At Schmidt & Titoni Firearms in Santa Rosa, gun dealers reported a similar surge.
See more in article in PD
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121227/COMMUNITY/121229639
Valley Oak
12-31-2012, 10:27 AM
Americans are crazy. This includes so-called "liberals" because many are in same ideological boat as Tea Party fascists when it comes to the issue of guns.
Shandi
12-31-2012, 11:22 AM
I'd have to agree that our culture is very sick, and the sickness is passed on from generation to generation, until someone is able to see the pattern and do something different by getting help or new information.
I was born into a family of mental ill generations, and fortunately I was spared enough to recognize the symptoms, and make changes, which included leaving home at 12 to get away from the insanity. It was one of the smartest moves of my life, because I could see my future, and it wasn't a pretty picture.
I created a new scenario with healthy role models, and then re-created a new healthy family that in turn has created families without substance abuse of any kind, and loving role models for their children.
I'm so thankful to have been able to see the dysfunctional pattern from an early age, make a "get away." Many children aren't so lucky.
Americans are crazy. This includes so-called "liberals" because many are in same ideological boat as Tea Party fascists when it comes to the issue of guns.
Valley Oak
12-31-2012, 01:11 PM
...And back to the issue of mass-murder in the US, we need gun control.
Edward
I'd have to agree that our culture is very sick, and the sickness is passed on from generation to generation, until someone is able to see the pattern and do something different by getting help or new information...
Hotspring 44
12-31-2012, 10:58 PM
Edward, realistically, how should the job of eliminating millions of guns that are already in peoples possession that you apparently want to ban (“now!”) and apparently confiscate too be done without a shot... ...no, rather, I should say, many shots being fired if confiscation is part of the new law? I don't think that (confiscation) is realistic to do that "now!" like you so passionately and idealistically are saying, it simply won't happen like that, (I mean) so immediately; it would criminalize too many and would inevitably and unfortunately lead to more gun violence, not less.
It is so easy to say just get rid of and ban; but in real terms I have not heard much from the anti gun advocates on the how, only the what and only after a horrific episode of a deranged person using a gun on innocent unarmed people most of which were children took place.
I think there will ultimately be a ban on particular weapons and possibly certain ammo for future sale but I don't believe that there will be a mass confiscation of what is already out there. And there will certainly be no outright ban on all guns in this country any time soon.
I do know what you are saying about, as you put it, “so-called "liberals"” but I have to say; to some degree, some “liberals”, so-called or not, do believe that the second amendment has it's place in the discussion but not necessarily the same as the NRA has as you surmise.... ...Just because some (“liberals”) disagree with you about gun control specifics does not mean they are “crazy”.
Even so-called fanatics (the NRA in this instance) can have a good point or two that someone reasonable (“liberals” in this instance) can agree with... ...so just because someone agrees with a particular point or another the so-called fanatic makes that you happen to disagree with in a discussion does not mean they are “crazy” or “fascist” either for that mater, IMHO.
There are, in this discussion topic two types of so-called “fascists” 1 are 100% anti gun, no matter what and the other are 100% pro gun no matter what.:2cents:
Americans are crazy. This includes so-called "liberals" because many are in same ideological boat as Tea Party fascists when it comes to the issue of guns.
Shandi
01-01-2013, 05:58 AM
Well spoken. You bring up points that are realistic. Who would willingly hand over their guns without a battle? Which in turn makes them armed criminals. The real criminals aren't about to hand over anything. There are many reasons why people own guns. I was advised to buy a small handgun for protection, when I lived alone. I couldn't do it, not because I fear guns, but because I feared having it turned on me. I do believe in having melee weapons close at hand, like a baseball bat, in addition to a good alarm system, electronic or canine.
I'd like to hear from people in our community who do own guns, and their reasons for it. How would they respond to a call for their guns? This may be a sensitive privacy issue, and gun owners may not want to reveal themselves, which is understandable. I'm wondering how many of our peace loving citizens do actually own guns for their protection, as we become more vulnerable.
I do know of people, (men) on the police force who wouldn't hesitate to use their gun, in a case of mistaken identity from "profiling", which we know has happened, and that act is covered up by those in power. Combine rage with firepower, and you've got a dangerous combination, which is sanctioned if you're on the force. There's a lot of rage among our citizens, many of whom own guns....which at some point may lead to another civil war. Taking away their guns is another way to reduce their power, after taking away their power to feed themselves and their children.
Guns aren't the only way to kill children and adults; they die daily from malnutrition and lack of medical care.
I think that lumping people into categories, and calling them "crazy" or "fascist" is a red flag to me, and it puts me off from any statements that may follow.
I'm glad to see statements from critical thinkers on this board, and wish Dixon could step into the fray.
Edward, realistically, how should the job of eliminating millions of guns that are already in peoples possession that you apparently want to ban (“now!”) and apparently confiscate too be done without a shot... ...no, rather, I should say, many shots being fired if confiscation is part of the new law? I don't think that (confiscation) is realistic to do that "now!" like you so passionately and idealistically are saying, it simply won't happen like that, (I mean) so immediately; it would criminalize too many and would inevitably and unfortunately lead to more gun violence, not less.
It is so easy to say just get rid of and ban; but in real terms I have not heard much from the anti gun advocates on the how, only the what and only after a horrific episode of a deranged person using a gun on innocent unarmed people most of which were children took place.
I think there will ultimately be a ban on particular weapons and possibly certain ammo for future sale but I don't believe that there will be a mass confiscation of what is already out there. And there will certainly be no outright ban on all guns in this country any time soon.
I do know what you are saying about, as you put it, “so-called "liberals"” but I have to say; to some degree, some “liberals”, so-called or not, do believe that the second amendment has it's place in the discussion but not necessarily the same as the NRA has as you surmise.... ...Just because some (“liberals”) disagree with you about gun control specifics does not mean they are “crazy”.
Even so-called fanatics (the NRA in this instance) can have a good point or two that someone reasonable (“liberals” in this instance) can agree with... ...so just because someone agrees with a particular point or another the so-called fanatic makes that you happen to disagree with in a discussion does not mean they are “crazy” or “fascist” either for that mater, IMHO.
There are, in this discussion topic two types of so-called “fascists” 1 are 100% anti gun, no matter what and the other are 100% pro gun no matter what.:2cents:
Shandi
01-01-2013, 06:10 AM
Just read this: "You cant legally buy in a Supermarket more than 6 packets of Sudafed tablets or a Chocolate Kinder egg or some french cheeses etc . but! you can go to Walmarts and buy an AR-57 plus 100 bullet magazines. the weapon that has been used in the last 4 mass killings. Thanks Walmart!
Alex
01-01-2013, 01:29 PM
...And back to the issue of mass-murder in the US, we need gun control.
Edward
Good idea, worked in Nazi Germany.
And the few bad apples that always exist will never again find one of the millions of guns in existence or another way to mass murder. Problem solved. Who cares why the founding fathers found writing gun ownership into the constitution crucial and foundational to keeping government in check - as the previous 1000's of years of history taught that they are prone to do given any chance.
But I'd rather start with gun controlling the US Government instead of giving them ALL the control! The US Government is the most immoral, invasive, prolific mass murderers currently on the planet with their cavalier dismissal of the 100,000's+ of 20th century violent deaths on their hands of innocent men, women and children as 'collateral damage' and 'friendly fire' in self-serving, unjustified wars to start with. They weren't 'oops'. It's naive to think they'll care any more about you if lines are drawn.
Besides, take away all the excessive guns, supplies, salaries, upkeep, uniforms, food, hardware of 700 of the 800+ military bases, and all 300 underground bases.... VOILA! - tax dollars suddenly prolifically available to fund infrastructure, education, medical care, mental health care, arts, social security, ....etc. and a much healthier, less frustrated society.
theindependenteye
01-01-2013, 02:41 PM
No question but that some of the issues raised by anti-gun control people on this list are valid. Tons of guns out there already, 2nd Amendment interpretations, instances where gun laws haven't worked, hypocrisy of bombing Pakistanis, the need for a radical transformation into a culture of peace, etc. What I find it hard to understand is that any of these are marshaled as arguments against doing anything about the insane number of shootings and gun deaths in this country by reasonable licensing and restrictions on purchase and possession.
To be logically consistent, I would propose that since laws against murder, rape, and robbery don't prevent these crimes from happening, there's no reason to have the laws. If murder is outlawed, only outlaws will murder. And driving would be safer if everyone drove 90 mph: we'd be more alert, and we wouldn't be on the road so long. And since the US Gov't commits atrocities, it's hypocritical to interfere with the Mafia's private enterprise.
This conversation at least lays one canard to rest. We Waccovians are often charged with being cookie-cutter Liberals, all brainlessly echoing the party line. There's clearly at least one issue that divides us. Long live diversity, and enjoy the shooting.
Cheers—
Conrad
Valley Oak
01-01-2013, 07:21 PM
I would like to consolidate this debate in one thread, not several threads and on several forums, as it is now. Here's why:
I get the feeling that you are fear mongering about a fantasy. You're saying that if we take the dangerous step of gun control that the American public will rise up in arms and start another civil war. This is far-fetched, to say the least. Also, you are assuming that gun control will turn into some very unreasonable laws. You share the same fears as the staunchest members of the NRA. Maybe you should become their Sonoma County rep?
For starters, the prohibition of the sale of guns whose only purpose is to kill people must be outlawed ASAP. These include all assault rifles (as I already answered in a previous question you asked me in another post). This should include automatic and semi-automatic ARs. Furthermore, the magazines on ALL gun need to be greatly limited, at least to 50% of what they are now. More detailed legislation can stipulate the number of rounds, etc.
It is possible to write good statute, Hotspring, but we have to have the will to do so. Otherwise, the dead bodies of Americans, including little children, will continue to pile up. And saying, essentially as you do, that we better not do anything simply because it might violate the 2nd Amendment is no longer an acceptable argument. It never was. You need to come up with solutions, not naysaying. Please leave that for the NRA, the Tea Party, Libertarian kooks, and other extremists and radicals.
I'm looking for a solution. What are YOU doing??? You seem to be simply saying: "DON'T YOU DARE DO ANYTHING BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE A TOTALITARIAN STATE (sound familiar? 'rednecky,' perhaps?) AND WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER CIVIL WAR. This is just fantastic fear mongering, just like the Republican Right Wing, and it just won't do. It doesn't help. Your stance does not provide a solution. It only prolongs the suffering, the killing, the dead, and the genocide.
It is very contradictory on your part to pretend to be a man of peace, being against the wars this country wages, but, "Oh no! We can't have gun control right here in the empire. We need to watch the piles of American dead bodies continue to rise." Please change your attitude and become a consistent person with your other peace-loving beliefs. It's as if you express profound revulsion only when it concerns people in other countries that the US bombs and occupies. But that kind of revulsion is absent because the 2nd Amendment would be violated with gun control laws. Please. I beseech you.
As far as your other concerns about the gargantuan stockpile that already exists in the US, please be careful of not committing the logical fallacy of negating change because "there are already too many guns out there so it's no use," etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth. That kind of thinking is just plain wrong. Also, in the same breath, you are saying something along the lines of, "The only possible solution now, with that ocean of guns throughout America, is to arm the shit out of everyone else." That's what the NRA is saying right now. That is tantamount to saying that the solution to having too many guns in the US is to get MANY MORE guns into EVERYBODY'S hands! This is sooo absurd! Again, please...
We need to start clamping down on the sale of ARs. This is a start. If you want, we can "grandfather" in the guns that are already out there. And as an additional solution to that particular problem (the existing gargantuan arsenal, let's call it the "EGA"), there have already been very successful programs in other countries encouraging people to VOLUNTARILY turn in their weapons. This has been done in Scotland (knives), Spain, and many other nations with varying degrees of success, but successful in the balance. Why? Because anyone who turns in a gun voluntarily automatically reduces the EGA by a little bit. And there will be many people who do.
The same rules can be applied to inheritance. You inherit the gun, it's yours. You will also have the option of turning it in voluntarily. There are solutions available to almost all types of problems but there never will be any if there is no will and if people, like you, continue to express your staunch opposition. Leave that to the Republicans, Libertarians, Rednecks, Tea Baggers, Conservatives, Confederates, Reactionaries, Gun Industry Corporations, etc. They don't need your help screwing the country over more than they have already done.
We need solutions, not opposition to change. We Americans need to change our attitudes and stop being so "back-woodsy" about the old-fashioned American gun myth and its lies. If we want change in this country then we also need to start with ourselves. We can't just sit back and expect someone from on high to do all of that work for us, and expect them to succeed with OUR opposition. This is crazy-making. How can Americans be so hypocritical and vote for change and then oppose those same political forces that we elected when they try to bring us the change that we charged them with in the first place?!
Fritz Perls (the greatest Gestalt psychologist of all time) said, "To do die and be reborn is not easy." He was right. look to yourself for the change that you yearn for so much. You can start by changing your attitudes about guns. Debunk the classical American myths about our gun culture and heritage. I know I'm asking a lot, too much, in fact, because your first response will be, "I don't want that kind of change." But We the People need you to make that change of heart, we all need to make that change. I don't expect it from the fanatics at the NRA, the Republican Party, Gun manufacturing corporations and their lobbies, ideological extremists like the Libertarians and Tea Baggers/Partiers, but I do expect that kind of profound change from more humanistic and progressive minded people like you and me and the majority of people on this list--a conscious community.
We can examine the use or justification about handguns. If we develop a committee and studies, at both the federal and state levels, to see if handguns are still useful, then they have to be regulated much more strictly than they are now. For example, I don't want to see Glock guns sold in the market. I only want to see that used by police and the Armed Forces, etc. I don't want to see another kook like the one in Arizona use a Glock gun to shoot people like Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. I cried like a baby when that happened. Please join me in the effort to avoid these kinds of horrific tragedies from taking place.
Or if the research finds that the consequences outweigh the benefits of handguns, then they too should be outlawed, with the ones in the EGA to "grandfathered" in, as you say. But using abstract arguments like the 2nd Amendment do not help the problem at all. It only obfuscates the issue. If you want to pound your fist so hard on the table regarding the Constitution, let's take a hard look at what that's all about, and maybe the need for that Amendment is not as necessary as it once was. Someone on the Wacco List said recently that we need guns so that the American people can protect themselves from a Nazi government here in the US. I don't know about you, but this kind of attitude is out of line with reality.
We Americans need to stop treating the US Constitution like the Holy Bible. This has to stop. We can continue to do, if the majority of us want to, but it won't be any different than the Saudis amputating hands after the 3rd warning to a thief to not steal again. I'm of the opinion that NO ONE, no matter how democratically or how traditional, has the right to cut off people's hands. I hope we Americans are enlightened enough and brave enough these days to change our attitudes about guns.
Just say 'NO' to guns. I dare you. The time has come.
Edward
Edward, realistically, how should the job of eliminating millions of guns that are already in peoples possession that you apparently want to ban (“now!”) and apparently confiscate too be done without a shot... ...no, rather, I should say, many shots being fired if confiscation is part of the new law? I don't think that (confiscation) is realistic to do that "now!" like you so passionately and idealistically are saying, it simply won't happen like that, (I mean) so immediately; it would criminalize too many and would inevitably and unfortunately lead to more gun violence, not less.
It is so easy to say just get rid of and ban; but in real terms I have not heard much from the anti gun advocates on the how, only the what and only after a horrific episode of a deranged person using a gun on innocent unarmed people most of which were children took place.
I think there will ultimately be a ban on particular weapons and possibly certain ammo for future sale but I don't believe that there will be a mass confiscation of what is already out there. And there will certainly be no outright ban on all guns in this country any time soon.
I do know what you are saying about, as you put it, “so-called "liberals"” but I have to say; to some degree, some “liberals”, so-called or not, do believe that the second amendment has it's place in the discussion but not necessarily the same as the NRA has as you surmise.... ...Just because some (“liberals”) disagree with you about gun control specifics does not mean they are “crazy”.
Even so-called fanatics (the NRA in this instance) can have a good point or two that someone reasonable (“liberals” in this instance) can agree with... ...so just because someone agrees with a particular point or another the so-called fanatic makes that you happen to disagree with in a discussion does not mean they are “crazy” or “fascist” either for that mater, IMHO.
There are, in this discussion topic two types of so-called “fascists” 1 are 100% anti gun, no matter what and the other are 100% pro gun no matter what.:2cents:
Hotspring 44
01-01-2013, 10:41 PM
...<snip>...
Edward, you said allot there.
I am not sure I can take it all in in one reading so for this posting I will say the following:
I would like to have the luxury to live in a world where there is no one that would even consider harming anyone else but unfortunately that is not the case.
I am concerned with the already existing multitudes of the so-called assault weapons “guns” and ammo for them and the time it will reasonably take to phase them out. I don't disagree with a reasonable approach towards that as a long-term goal.
Most people in the US that have stockpiled that type of weaponry are not “progressives”, they are staunch,, hard core, right wing zealot types some of who are as adamant about their “riotousness” as the Taliban is but only with a different religion, however they are very dangerous and need to be watched very closely, they can disrupt things in all different directions.
They can use the NRA and such to make real trouble in the law making and lobby so as to render others (“people”) they don't like into an unarmed state while they, (the zealots) are still armed; (Nazi Germany comes to mind) That is not acceptable!...
...I would rather have gun laws remain as they are now rather than have that imbalance of fire-power.</snip>
kpage9
01-01-2013, 10:55 PM
Hotspring, I sure wish you had fully read Edward's post before "answering".
kathy
Hotspring 44
01-02-2013, 12:54 AM
I'm looking for a solution. What are YOU doing??? You seem to be simply saying: "DON'T YOU DARE DO ANYTHING BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE A TOTALITARIAN STATE (sound familiar? 'rednecky,' perhaps?) AND WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER CIVIL WAR. This is just fantastic fear mongering, just like the Republican Right Wing, and it just won't do. It doesn't help. Your stance does not provide a solution. It only prolongs the suffering, the killing, the dead, and the genocide.
And:
It is very contradictory on your part to pretend to be a man of peace, being against the wars this country wages, but, "Oh no! We can't have gun control right here in the empire. We need to watch the piles of American dead bodies continue to rise." Please change your attitude and become a consistent person with your other peace-loving beliefs. It's as if you express profound revulsion only when it concerns people in other countries that the US bombs and occupies. But that kind of revulsion is absent because the 2nd Amendment would be violated with gun control laws. Please....
First of all there are differing reasons to legitimately go to war as a country that I think would be necessary and justifiable but the lies and deceit that got us to go to Iraq are not what I would say were legitimate.
An honest defense would be.
The way you stated to me
Your stance does not provide a solution has the implication that somehow, out of the blue, that I for some reason, unbeknownst to me, have an obligation to come-up with a solution. (?)... ...Say what!???... ...Excuse me but; where did that come from? I never professed to have a “solution”.
And as you said:
...sound familiar? 'rednecky,' perhaps? Perhaps...
And as you said:
It only prolongs the suffering, the killing, the dead, and the genocide....
“Genocide” you say? Are you trying to lay a guilt trip on me?... ... If you are, it is not working or helping to formulate a reasonable and realistic solution.
Then you went on with:
We need to start clamping down on the sale of ARs. This is a start.
I agree, for that matter, add other like guns too. The ammo is another subject that is more complex because many bolt action hunting rifles use the same cartridges as do the “assault” rifles. Banning the armor piercing rounds is a no-brainier but hollow-point bullets do have a legitimate hunting use.
You also said: …
there have already been very successful programs in other countries encouraging people to VOLUNTARILY turn in their weapons.
That is one thing that I had in mind. It is what it will ultimately take to lower the "EGA"
Also you said
The same rules can be applied to inheritance. You inherit the gun, it's yours. You will also have the option of turning it in voluntarily.
Edward, I agree with that. Now we are closer to the same wavelength.:thumbsup:
Then you said this:
Gun Industry Corporations, etc. They don't need your help screwing the country over more than they have already done.
Don't fret, they are not getting any “help” of any consequence from me.
You asked:
How can Americans be so hypocritical and vote for change and then oppose those same political forces that we elected when they try to bring us the change that we charged them with in the first place?!
I ask myself that same question on many social and political topics, I believe the word, in a nutshell is: fear.
I agree with the thought (what I think you are basically saying somewhere in that post) (that) America needs to do some soul searching for the peaceful inner being that exists somewhere under all that armor and use it; and the sooner the better.
You also said:
We can examine the use or justification about handguns. If we develop a committee and studies, at both the federal and state levels, to see if handguns are still useful, then they have to be regulated much more strictly than they are now. For example, I don't want to see Glock guns sold in the market. I only want to see that used by police and the Armed Forces, etc. I don't want to see another kook like the one in Arizona use a Glock gun to shoot people like Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. I cried like a baby when that happened. Please join me in the effort to avoid these kinds of horrific tragedies from taking place.
I hope we don't make the mistake of putting the horse before the carriage and only concentrate on what is ultimately all guns eventually being prohibited.
We must also consider the lack of mental health care and the warning signs that are vastly more prevalent in individuals that commit mass murder with guns because they will use whatever is closest at hand to do their killing with because, ultimately, when that deranged person if left untreated and/or isolated, that person would just as likely use something just as deadly as a gun anyway.
If we simply remove the first weapon of choice there would be a second, third, etc because the problem which is ultimately a mentality will forever be inadequately addressed. That being said, it is a reasonable idea to start with banning sales of certain guns and ammo clips and such to minimize the threat at large.
So do you think I can represent the local NRA after saying that?
Hotspring 44
01-02-2013, 12:59 AM
I did but it was allot to take in as I said.
I have already posted a more complete reply.:waccosun:
Hotspring, I sure wish you had fully read Edward's post before "answering".
kathy
Barry
01-02-2013, 01:20 PM
I have merged the two gun control threads into this one.
Barry
theindependenteye
01-02-2013, 03:28 PM
>>>I am concerned with the already existing multitudes of the so-called assault weapons “guns” and ammo for them and the time it will reasonably take to phase them out. ...
>>>Most people in the US that have stockpiled that type of weaponry are not “progressives”, they are staunch,, hard core, right wing zealot types some of who are as adamant about their “riotousness” as the Taliban is but only with a different religion, however they are very dangerous and need to be watched very closely, they can disrupt things in all different directions.
>>>They can use the NRA and such to make real trouble in the law making and lobby so as to render others (“people”) they don't like into an unarmed state...
>>>I would rather have gun laws remain as they are now rather than have that imbalance of fire-power.
Please clarify. I just don't follow your logic.
Are you saying that because there's a heavy preponderance of armed reactionary zealots, we should keep a status quo that allows a potentially exponential growth in the numbers of armed reactionary zealots?
I suppose that if you feel you need to arm yourself against death squads, you should do it sooner rather than later. Or if you feel that the police would turn a blind eye rather than be gunned down by automatic fire.
I'm not unconcerned by those things myself. But I don't see that as a valid argument for doing nothing besides, perhaps, meditating on the enlightenment of humankind.
That said, where I do see your argument as relevant is in a legislative danger: passage of laws that grandfather in the ownership of assault weapons. That would, at the very least (as it did before), create a huge swell in both inventory and sales prior to the ban going into effect, and also lock in the status quo. If they're banned, they should be banned, period, or for collectors, kept only if they're permanently disabled. But the danger of that is just as great whether or not we ruffle the feathers of reactionaries: their feathers have been ruffled into war bonnets for a long, long time.
Peace & joy--
Conrad
Valley Oak
01-02-2013, 05:01 PM
Hotspring, my answers are interspersed throughout your commentaries, below:
---------------
First of all there are differing reasons to legitimately go to war as a country that I think would be necessary and justifiable but the lies and deceit that got us to go to Iraq are not what I would say were legitimate.
An honest defense would be.
Edward's Reply:
Relevance? I’m talking about your lack of consistency. You are supposedly some kind of a peace-loving man but you suddenly become a gun-toting, 2nd Amendment fanatic when it comes to the home front. Why the double standard?
----------
The way you stated to me has the implication that somehow, out of the blue, that I for some reason, unbeknownst to me, have an obligation to come-up with a solution. (?)... ...Say what!???... ...Excuse me but; where did that come from? I never professed to have a “solution”.
Edward's Reply:
Whoa! We ALL have an obligation, Hotspring. Since when have you not been aware of that??? We ALL have an obligation as American citizens, many obligations, in fact. We are ALL responsible for our civic participation, or lack thereof. We are ALL responsible for the environment. We are ALL responsible for many different things as citizens. The idea that a person only has obligations to him or herself (and screw everyone else) strikes me, very clearly, as being the attitude of rich people, Republicans, conservatives, Libertarians, and right wing Christians. So these are your true colors finally rising to the surface in our debate?
--------
And as you said: Perhaps...
Edward's Reply:
That is really tragic to hear. You are proud of a backward attitude that needs to change! Or we will continue to see the dead bodies of little children pile up just like they did in Connecticut.
---------
And as you said:
“Genocide” you say? Are you trying to lay a guilt trip on me?... ... If you are, it is not working or helping to formulate a reasonable and realistic solution.
Edward's Reply:
No guilt trip intentioned, just your civic responsibility and your sense of reasoning, both of which I seriously question. When a boss tells an employee that he or she hasn’t been doing their job, there is no guilt trip going on there at all. And the employee knows it. In the case of gun control, We Americans are shirking our civic duty. But the consequences do not involve getting fired from a job. The consequences are many more dead Americans because we don’t have adequate gun control.
----------
Then you went on with:
I agree, for that matter, add other like guns too. The ammo is another subject that is more complex because many bolt action hunting rifles use the same cartridges as do the “assault” rifles. Banning the armor piercing rounds is a no-brainier but hollow-point bullets do have a legitimate hunting use.
Edward's Reply:
Congratulations. Our first instance of common ground. I had not even thought of the idea of armor piercing rounds. You have educated me a little. Thank you.
---------
You also said: …
That is one thing that I had in mind. It is what it will ultimately take to lower the "EGA"
Edward's Reply:
Second instance. Progress!
----------
Also you said
Edward, I agree with that. Now we are closer to the same wavelength.:thumbsup:
Edward's Reply:
Yes! Three and counting.
-----------
Then you said this:
Don't fret, they are not getting any “help” of any consequence from me.
Edward's Reply:
I’m so happy to hear that. Thank you.
--------
You asked:
I ask myself that same question on many social and political topics, I believe the word, in a nutshell is: fear.
Edward's Reply:
I agree (four points of common ground).
----------
I agree with the thought (what I think you are basically saying somewhere in that post) (that) America needs to do some soul searching for the peaceful inner being that exists somewhere under all that armor and use it; and the sooner the better.
Edward's Reply:
Huzzah!
-----------
You also said:
I hope we don't make the mistake of putting the horse before the carriage and only concentrate on what is ultimately all guns eventually being prohibited.
Edward's Reply:
Ah! Your true fear unearthed: THE PROHIBITION OF ALL GUNS!!! We are light-years away from that EVER happening. And we have a lot of work ahead of us. Look at how difficult it is to reach a budget deal with the Republican-Tea Party. Those same folks will NEVER support any kind of gun control.
--------------
We must also consider the lack of mental health care and the warning signs that are vastly more prevalent in individuals that commit mass murder with guns because they will use whatever is closest at hand to do their killing with because, ultimately, when that deranged person if left untreated and/or isolated, that person would just as likely use something just as deadly as a gun anyway.
Edward's Reply:
Agreed. Five points.
But to state this is not a reason to avoid implementing gun control. The healthcare issue is a separate problem altogether, although we might disagree in this particular hairsplitting point. And, thanks to President Obama, we have some remotely sufficient healthcare program very slowly kicking in as we speak.
The enormous problem of gun control is so big and varied, that several attack points are necessary to address it successfully.
-------------
If we simply remove the first weapon of choice there would be a second, third, etc because the problem which is ultimately a mentality will forever be inadequately addressed. That being said, it is a reasonable idea to start with banning sales of certain guns and ammo clips and such to minimize the threat at large.
Edward's Reply:
Partial agreement. Six points of common ground.
The dynamic of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, etc, is not a permanent problem. After just one year of implementing new public policy for gun control, the process of evaluation can take place. This is crucial because an assessment of new statute (whether it is gun control or anything else) can show us where the new rules are deficient. We can fix those problems by modifying the new laws. If gun fanatics think they’re being smart by skirting the new gun control laws somehow, that can easily be addressed by covering up those loopholes, like guns-shows, simple modifications, and so on.
------------
So do you think I can represent the local NRA after saying that?
Edward's Reply:
Nope!
Thank you,
Edward
Valley Oak
01-02-2013, 05:12 PM
BTW, I have a Constitutional right to own an atomic bomb! The 2nd Amendment says so.
(Pssst, where is the local hardware store in Santa Rosa where I can buy plutonium?)
Conly
01-02-2013, 07:05 PM
A gun without bullets is just a hunk of metal. You can side step all the gun lobbies by NOT manufacturing "live ammunition".. Regulate the components of gunpowder. (so no home made ammo). Tax the manufacture of empty cartridges. Tax brass. There are many ways to stop "gun violence".
Just make Guns and ALL of the accessories prohibitively expensive.
Stop wining. Take action.
meherc
01-03-2013, 01:44 AM
The long and hard fight for gun control is worth the struggle. There are many who are against gun control despite the 20 murdered children in Connecticut.
People against gun control should travel to Connecticut and spend Christmas Day with the families of those murdered children and explain to them, face to face, why they prefer that guns continue to be abundantly available to any nut-case so that this tragedy can be repeated indefinitely. Americans who argue against gun control prefer to see more murdered children than to provide a solution. Shame on them. They are being astonishingly ignorant, arrogant, insensitive, and ideologically deluded beyond belief.
You can spend your christmas with me. It really pisses me off when all these newscasters say "Why did he do it, was it an argument with his mother that set him off/" NO, it was because he was sick, mentally ill. There was no "reason" except a crazy one in his own head. My son had a psychotic break last year and stabbed his father 52 times, to death obviously. He thought he was fulfilling an ancient rite that was his destiny to kill the one who was controlling the evil in the world. He did not know it was his loving dad. so if you want to spend time with one of the kindergarten families in CT, you can come and see me. I'm a lot closer and my life has been absolutely destroyed. I lost everything. I am heartily in favor of gun control but more concerned with helping the mentally ill, and reforming the archaic, absolutely horrible jail system. I couldn't believe they would throw a sick person, naked, into an empty cement "safe" room. More like the Spanish Inquisition.
Valley Oak
01-03-2013, 08:31 AM
The following article was published by The New York Times on January 2, 2013:
January 2, 2013
A Soaring Homicide Rate, a Divide in Chicago
By MONICA DAVEY (https://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/monica_davey/index.html)
CHICAGO — This city’s 471st homicide of 2012 happened in the middle of the day, in the middle of a crowd, on the steps of the church where the victim of homicide 463 was being eulogized. Sherman Miller, who was 21, collapsed amid gunfire not far from the idling hearse that was there to carry away James Holman, 32, shot to death a week earlier.
The funeral shooting (https://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-26/news/chi-2-shot-on-south-side-possibly-at-funeral-20121126_1_homicide-victims-gang-member-fewer-homicides) at St. Columbanus Catholic Church on the South Side left neighbors fretting that no place, not even a church, felt safe any longer. “It’s become the Wild Wild West,” said Charles Childs Jr., who had watched from across the street as mourners screamed and scattered.
The shooting, on Nov. 26, was one more jarring reminder of just how common killings seem to have grown on the streets of Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city, where 506 homicides were reported in 2012, a 16 percent increase over the year before, even as the number of killings remained relatively steady or dropped in some cities, including New York.
But the overall rise in killings here blurs another truth: the homicides, most of which the authorities described as gang-against-gang shootings, have not been spread evenly across this city. Instead, they have mostly taken place in neighborhoods west and south of Chicago’s gleaming downtown towers.
Already, 2013 began with three gun homicides on New Year’s Day (https://www.suntimes.com/news/17331248-418/the-list-15-people-shot-3-fatally-on-new-years-day.html), two of them on the South Side. Like other cities, Chicago has long been a segregated place, richer and whiter on the North Side, and the city’s troubling increase in killings has accentuated a longstanding divide.
“It’s two different Chicagos,” said the Rev. Corey B. Brooks Sr., the pastor of New Beginnings Church on the South Side, who had led the funeral service for Mr. Holman the day shots rang out, then found himself leading Mr. Miller’s funeral service a week later. The authorities here have described both shootings as gang related. “If something like that had happened at the big cathedral in downtown Chicago or up north at a predominantly white church, it would still be on the news right now, it would be such a major thing going on.”
More than 80 percent of the city’s homicides took place last year in only about half of Chicago’s 23 police districts, largely on the city’s South and West Sides. The police district that includes parts of the business district downtown reported no killings at all. And while at least one police district on the city’s northern edge saw a significant increase in the rate of killings, the total number there still was dwarfed by deaths in districts on the other sides of town, and particularly in certain neighborhoods.
Along the streets downtown and in neighborhoods on the North Side not far from Lake Michigan, some residents acknowledged that they had heard about a rise in the city’s homicide rate, but said it had not affected their own sense of safety. “This area is a bit of a Garden of Eden,” said Gwen Sylvain, as she walked dogs along a residential street not far from the Loop.
Others said they rarely had reason to go to the Chicago’s South or West Sides, only a few miles away, and some longtime residents said they had never once ventured to such neighborhoods. Police business on the North Side rarely seems to rise beyond an overly enthusiastic Cubs fan or a parking quibble, said Kyong Lee, who said that in the past he had, without consequence, forgotten to lock up his family’s shoe repair business.
In Back of the Yards, a South Side neighborhood near the city’s old meatpacking district, the tenor was far different. Mothers spoke of keeping their children inside from the moment school ended, and businessmen of decisions to lock the front doors of their shops during business hours. “I don’t go out at night,” said Jesse Martinez, who recalled the gun pressed to his head as he was robbed a few years ago inside the hat and boot store he has run for 32 years.
Over all, crime in Chicago dropped 9 percent in 2012 from the year before in what city officials say was the largest decrease in 30 years. Among crimes that saw dips last year: rape, robbery and car theft. With the city’s longtime gangs splintering into factions and increasing problems with retaliatory violence, homicides rose suddenly in the first three months of the year — running some 60 percent ahead of the year earlier — creating a pace that slowed significantly as the year went on.
City officials attributed the improvement to a broad anti-gang strategy that includes an elaborate police audit of gang members, removal of vacant buildings and efforts to involve neighbors. Some have called for increased gun control legislation; of 7,000 guns recovered by the Chicago police in recent months, handguns are most common, but 300 were assault weapons.
“A child shot is a child of the City of Chicago,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who lives on the North Side, said in an interview in which he addressed the long-held divisions in a city known for its endless array of distinct neighborhoods on the North, South and West Sides. “Don’t anybody think that it’s ‘over there,’ ” the mayor said. “It’s a tear on this city.”
No arrests have been made in the deaths of Mr. Holman or Mr. Miller, who died on the steps of the church that Al Capone’s mother once attended regularly and where Barack Obama distributed food to the needy just after he was elected president in 2008. The authorities say three guns were believed to be present when Mr. Miller died. The police say Mr. Miller was carrying a gun. And bullet casings from two other weapons were found on the steps.
At Mr. Miller’s funeral in December, a large contingent of Chicago police officers waited outside.
“It’s gotten to the point, unfortunately, where something as significant as a funeral is subject to gang violence, and I can’t even believe that we’re having this conversation,” Garry McCarthy, the police superintendent here, said in an interview. “I’m not willing to gamble that maybe they’re not going to bring their guns this time.”
Inside that funeral, at another church on the city’s South Side, Mr. Brooks stood near Mr. Miller’s coffin, recalling what had happened at the last funeral. “Ever since then,” Mr. Brooks told Mr. Miller’s mother, who sat before him, “my heart has been so torn.”
As friends of the deceased stepped past his framed photograph to stand at a microphone, Mr. Brooks called for peace in the church, read out his own cellphone number (in case, he said, anyone needed it), and stopped one young man from launching into a rap, for fear, Mr. Brooks said later, of what new trouble that might stir.
In a corner of the church, a friend of Mr. Miller revealed text messages he had sent to her during Mr. Holman’s funeral, minutes before he was shot: “dis preacher like he talkin straight to me,” one of the messages read. “He talkin bout hurts and pain. I cant run from the pain cause its gone hurt me worse if I’m by myself because I gotta think about everything.” In tears, she recalled how she had replied to the texts with questions, but Mr. Miller never responded.
Valley Oak
01-03-2013, 09:08 AM
Conrad, I fear that "Hotspring" envisions a "liberal militia" ready to take on and defeat the "conservative militia." This is one of the most delusional attitudes that I have EVER encountered. Perhaps HoTsPrInG is thinking about a 2nd Civil War? Between the States? Door to door?
This is entertaining, if not disturbing rhetoric. Perhaps putting it in print would make a bestseller for people with overactive neuroses, paranoia, and imagination.
I'm beginning to see a stronger argument now with providing better mental healthcare. The song by the Cranberries with their song, "Zombie," about the conflict in Northern Ireland is relevant:
"...We must be mistaken
It's the same old thing since 1916
In your head in your head
Their still fighting..."
The hallucinations of needing a gargantuan arsenal of weaponry in civilians' hands is in the minds of Americans, not reality. This is not 1776; it is 2012 and people are dying, children are dying, and it HAS TO STOP!!!
Tragically, millions of Americans make the same argument that Timothy McVeigh did when he blew up the "enemy" Federal building in Oklahoma. And it's all in their heads. Universal healthcare is looong overdue.
Edward
>>>I am concerned with the already existing multitudes of the so-called assault weapons “guns” and ammo for them and the time it will reasonably take to phase them out. ...
>>>Most people in the US that have stockpiled that type of weaponry are not “progressives”, they are staunch,, hard core, right wing zealot types some of who are as adamant about their “riotousness” as the Taliban is but only with a different religion, however they are very dangerous and need to be watched very closely, they can disrupt things in all different directions.
>>>They can use the NRA and such to make real trouble in the law making and lobby so as to render others (“people”) they don't like into an unarmed state...
>>>I would rather have gun laws remain as they are now rather than have that imbalance of fire-power.
Please clarify. I just don't follow your logic.
Are you saying that because there's a heavy preponderance of armed reactionary zealots, we should keep a status quo that allows a potentially exponential growth in the numbers of armed reactionary zealots?
I suppose that if you feel you need to arm yourself against death squads, you should do it sooner rather than later. Or if you feel that the police would turn a blind eye rather than be gunned down by automatic fire.
I'm not unconcerned by those things myself. But I don't see that as a valid argument for doing nothing besides, perhaps, meditating on the enlightenment of humankind.
That said, where I do see your argument as relevant is in a legislative danger: passage of laws that grandfather in the ownership of assault weapons. That would, at the very least (as it did before), create a huge swell in both inventory and sales prior to the ban going into effect, and also lock in the status quo. If they're banned, they should be banned, period, or for collectors, kept only if they're permanently disabled. But the danger of that is just as great whether or not we ruffle the feathers of reactionaries: their feathers have been ruffled into war bonnets for a long, long time.
Peace & joy--
Conrad
Valley Oak
01-03-2013, 09:54 AM
Republican Peter King: 'I Really Don't Know Why People Need Assault Weapons'
by AWR Hawkins (https://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/AWR-Hawkins) 3 Jan 2013, 6:13 AM PDT
https://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Columnists/Headshots-80x100/contributor-80x100-awrhawkins.png According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle. This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005 (https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html), the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011 (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11), there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists (https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html) each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.
The bottom line: A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional. We face far greater danger from individuals armed with carpenters' tools and a caveman's stick.
And it seems fairly obvious that if more people had a gun, less people would be inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.
Valley Oak
01-03-2013, 03:51 PM
Sociopath Timothy McVeigh also loved guns and bombs and hated the "Socialist" Federal Government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMmy5bletg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
Valley Oak
01-04-2013, 09:04 AM
There are many people against gun control:
Right Wing, Anti-Government Militias On The Rise!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp4hjoWWaLA
Hotspring 44
01-04-2013, 07:22 PM
Conrad, I fear that "Hotspring" envisions a "liberal militia" ready to take on and defeat the "conservative militia." This is one of the most delusional attitudes that I have EVER encountered. Perhaps HoTsPrInG is thinking about a 2nd Civil War? Between the States? Door to door?
This is entertaining, if not disturbing rhetoric. Perhaps putting it in print would make a bestseller for people with overactive neuroses, paranoia, and imagination.
I'm beginning to see a stronger argument now with providing better mental healthcare. The song by the Cranberries with their song, "Zombie," about the conflict in Northern Ireland is relevant:
"...We must be mistaken
It's the same old thing since 1916
In your head in your head
Their still fighting..."
The hallucinations of needing a gargantuan arsenal of weaponry in civilians' hands is in the minds of Americans, not reality. This is not 1776; it is 2012 and people are dying, children are dying, and it HAS TO STOP!!!
Tragically, millions of Americans make the same argument that Timothy McVeigh did when he blew up the "enemy" Federal building in Oklahoma. And it's all in their heads. Universal healthcare is looong overdue.
Edward
Edward, you are incorrect about me (again). I think you are the most delusional one in this thread; to the point of paranoia it seems.
You are so incorrect about me that it is if you are making something up about me.
Instead of having a respectful form of dialog (in this thread in general) you try to make me out to be something I clearly am not.
I hope you don't have any guns.
Hotspring 44
01-04-2013, 07:30 PM
If you remember or not I don't know but Timothy McVeigh's weapon of choice was high-powered explosives, not an assault rifle.
Edward, you have been very consistent at the
Sociopath Timothy McVeigh also loved guns and bombs and hated the "Socialist" Federal Government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMmy5bletg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
Hotspring 44
01-04-2013, 08:00 PM
I will be more specific.
Edward, in my assessment you have consistently resorted to using the Ad Hominem Attack (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ad+Hominem+Attack) tactic,specifically: the "Guilt by association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack#Guilt_by_association)" form when confronted with any real life issues (second amendment for one) and other things that have precedent in law when I brought it up. You doing that it is not conducive to my feeling willing to have any further debate with you on this topic.
You have directed that towards me personally on this thread more than others. I don't know why but I would like it to stop if you can. If you either can't or won't, I will put you on my ignore list at some point.
FWIW, I have never as of yet put anyone on that list.
Also, FYI to all on this thread, I will be off-line for a few days, so don't assume I am being evasive or whatever. I will be around eventually.
Edward, you are incorrect about me (again). I think you are the most delusional one in this thread; to the point of paranoia it seems.
You are so incorrect about me that it is if you are making something up about me.
Instead of having a respectful form of dialog (in this thread in general) you try to make me out to be something I clearly am not.
I hope you don't have any guns.
sharingwisdom
01-04-2013, 08:08 PM
Who's a sociopath? It's interesting that some people are unable to see the repeating, similar patterns of so-called "terrorism" action from Oklahoma city, to the '93 World Trade center, to the 911 and to these Colorado shootings as our rights are being usurped. This is not about right vs left, republicans vs democrats. This is about stopping further action of the unconstitutional Patriot act.
Ever hear of Operation Northwoods (https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html) The strategies have been set in place for quite awhile. Mike Rupert, former DEA agent (some of you may remember him in Sebastopol in November of '01 right after the 911) discusses from an article at that time that there is evidence that the 1995 Murrah building bombing was a government operation planned from the start to look lie an "Iraqi terrorist" strike.
There were many players in this charade that were covered-up. German military intelligence operative Lt. Andreas Strassmeir was identified as a strong suspect in the 1995 Oklahoma City (Murrah Federal Building) bombing, but was given diplomatic immunity, never questioned by the FBI despite considerable evidence of his involvement, and was amazingly whisked out of the country back to Germany. Strassmeir's grandfather was a co-founder of the Nazi Party. His father, Gunter Strassmeir, was Helmut Kohl's Secretatry of State, had been high in the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND; the German CIA), and was a co-architect of German reunification along with George Bush senior. And there is so much more.
Oklahoma bombing was an inside job, Timothy McVeigh was a CIA patsy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWpwO7eQCsk
OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING Forerunner To 9-11 "A False Flag Conspiracy"
Sociopath Timothy McVeigh also loved guns and bombs and hated the "Socialist" Federal Government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMmy5bletg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
Valley Oak
01-04-2013, 09:49 PM
My apologies.
Edward
PS: I don't own a gun. Never have, never will. No need.
I will be more specific.
Edward, in my assessment you have consistently resorted to using the Ad Hominem Attack (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ad+Hominem+Attack) tactic,specifically: the "Guilt by association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack#Guilt_by_association)" form when confronted with any real life issues (second amendment for one) and other things that have precedent in law when I brought it up. You doing that it is not conducive to my feeling willing to have any further debate with you on this topic.
You have directed that towards me personally on this thread more than others. I don't know why but I would like it to stop if you can. If you either can't or won't, I will put you on my ignore list at some point.
FWIW, I have never as of yet put anyone on that list.
Also, FYI to all on this thread, I will be off-line for a few days, so don't assume I am being evasive or whatever. I will be around eventually.
Shandi
01-05-2013, 08:38 AM
Edward, I'm glad to see a public apology. Making accusations against people who don't agree with you, as you've done with HotSpring is a form of "violence" as I'm sure the supporters of non-violent communication would agree. And it doesn't do much to get the pro gun community to even want to read what you have to say. I'm kind of surprised that Barry didn't step in to remind you about the Wacco guidelines. But he may have been ready to....
My apologies.
Edward
PS: I don't own a gun. Never have, never will. No need.
Valley Oak
01-05-2013, 09:46 AM
I did let my emotions get the best of me and for that I apologize not only to Hotspring but to you and everyone else in this Conscious Community. It is not my intent to destroy the atmosphere of free exchange of ideas and dialog in general. And yes, you are 100% correct, a hostile or disrespectful attitude is the opposite of what is needed to get people to listen to a message. The reverse is the consequence. So I have hurt not only others, but the community, myself, and my message.
Edward
Edward, I'm glad to see a public apology. Making accusations against people who don't agree with you, as you've done with HotSpring is a form of "violence" as I'm sure the supporters of non-violent communication would agree. And it doesn't do much to get the pro gun community to even want to read what you have to say. I'm kind of surprised that Barry didn't step in to remind you about the Wacco guidelines. But he may have been ready to....
handy
01-05-2013, 01:48 PM
My apologies.
Edward
PS: I don't own a gun. Never have, never will. No need.
"No need" tells me you would choose to depend on government uniforms should the need ever arise.
This is your right, and I have no argument with it.
They will arrive late. As in, "When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away."
The question comes down to, whom would you rather they draw the chalk line around; you or the other?
People who choose to be prepared are merely taking a chance on having a chance, nothing more.
Best regards,
handy
01-05-2013, 02:06 PM
Nothing like the truth and the whole truth, as someone posted on this subject (gun control) not long ago.
<snip>
Yup. All numbers seem to get massaged. That's why we all need to read multiple sources and form our own decisons and perspectives. Got any figures for iatrogenic deaths per year? Or automobile deaths? Or drownings?
Singling out guns for "control" (read forced confiscation at some point), is a political control mechanism, not a safety interest.
On the issue of declaring some weapons "Assault Weapons", perhaps we should issue only "defense weapons" to the military, since what they are claimed to be doing is defense of the country. Or, to try do impose some descriptive accuracy, perhaps we should rename the Department of Defense the Department of Assault?
Hotspring 44
01-05-2013, 06:08 PM
Edward, I appreciate and accept your apology.:):
My apologies.
Edward
PS: I don't own a gun. Never have, never will. No need.
Hotspring 44
01-05-2013, 06:49 PM
Edward, I am glad you understand what I was saying about how I felt from some of our (your) communications (to and about me) on this thread.
Now that you recognize what was happening, you have a better chance to have your messages more thoroughly discussed in what will hopefully be a more conducive way to gain a consensus building theme on the things you want to realize.:waccosun:
There is allot of passion on all sides of this sensitive issue.
When you know deep in your heart what is good and you are passionate about it, you can't give-up on it even when it seems unlikely to achieve 100% of it.
You / me / everyone / we, may never know (that) what we put into whatever it is, that it may be a vital part of the whole that holds together the best outcome possible under the circumstance; we can only do our best we can.
Sometimes we get overzealous for our own best interest so when someone in the conscientious community recognizes it when it is happening to oneself or another, it helps to carefully as possible, point it out to the person (or acknowledge it) so we can have the better for all of us in communicating what we really need to relate. :waccosun:
I am glad I was able to get back on-line to post my response tonight because I will most likely be off-line for up to 2-3 weeks.:Yinyangv:
OK time to pull the internet plug for now.
Peace to everybody.
I did let my emotions get the best of me and for that I apologize not only to Hotspring but to you and everyone else in this Conscious Community. It is not my intent to destroy the atmosphere of free exchange of ideas and dialog in general. And yes, you are 100% correct, a hostile or disrespectful attitude is the opposite of what is needed to get people to listen to a message. The reverse is the consequence. So I have hurt not only others, but the community, myself, and my message.
Edward
handy
01-06-2013, 08:12 AM
So are highway speed limits. (read “forced behavior that concerns public safety.”)
Not at all equal. Safety on the roads occurs because we, as individuals, trust each other to follow agreed upon rules. Force is only applied to those who break that trust, as it should be.
Confiscation by force, from people who didn't shoot anybody is not in the same ballpark at all.
podfish
01-06-2013, 12:34 PM
People get fined if they break the law. People obey the law so they won’t get fined. . how 'bout "Some people obey the law so they won't get fined. Others obey the law because they have a sense of responsibility and consideration for others. Probably the majority, too.
Assuming the worst of everyone, and taking the worst possible interpretation of their actions leads to excessive cynicism and in the long run leads people to support policies that embody this view: that other people need to be controlled so they don't get in my way. Funny how common is is for people who profess a desire for more freedom fall into this perspective, because the rational reaction if this view is correct is to limit freedoms, since that's the only way to control misbehavior.
Barry
01-06-2013, 12:57 PM
My sense is that by bringing a gun to a confrontation you are actually increasing the likelihood that you will be shot. Non-violently capitulating to whatever the demand an the moment is probably the safest thing to do, if unpleasant at the moment and its aftermath. But at least you are still alive.
<br><br>
"No need" tells me you would choose to depend on government uniforms should the need ever arise.
This is your right, and I have no argument with it.
They will arrive late. As in, "When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away."
The question comes down to, whom would you rather they draw the chalk line around; you or the other?
People who choose to be prepared are merely taking a chance on having a chance, nothing more.
Best regards,
Scooter
01-06-2013, 05:16 PM
"Don’t have any figures on baseball bats and safety, though."
Have you figures on anything? Or more hyperbole.
Valley Oak
01-06-2013, 05:33 PM
Huh?
"Don’t have any figures on baseball bats and safety, though."
Have you figures on anything? Or more hyperbole.
Valley Oak
01-06-2013, 05:43 PM
.
Scooter's grandmother:
20092
"Don’t have any figures on baseball bats and safety, though."
Have you figures on anything? Or more hyperbole.
Scooter
01-06-2013, 06:03 PM
It's probably a good thing you don't have guns Ed or you resort to using that instead of your computer to baselessly attack someone's dead grandparents because of a question you obviously don't understand. Try again.*
Valley Oak
01-06-2013, 08:23 PM
Here's the scoop, Scoot:
Our second amendment rights are long overdue a reevaluation. How many more senseless and entirely PREVENTABLE shootings have to occur before we do something about Gun Control.
As a citizen and constituent of this great country, I am asking that you take a firm stand and make a positive change by restricting access to guns and saving lives.
I don't have a gun. I don't want a gun. I don't need a gun. But somehow the guns always wind up in the hands of people crazy enough to use them irresponsibly and dangerously. This HAS TO BE STOPPED.
It's probably a good thing you don't have guns Ed or you resort to using that instead of your computer to baselessly attack someone's dead grandparents because of a question you obviously don't understand. Try again.*
Scooter
01-06-2013, 10:25 PM
All the while you use your first amendment rights to attack me and my dead family members. Your better how? How many guns do i have? Our society needs people to not jump on others for asking a question. Not matter how obvious the answer. We need people to not assume others have living grandparents and dont mind then being made fun of. But the sadly is not what this thread or what Wacco is turning into.
handy
01-07-2013, 06:08 AM
In the beginning, there was the highway. ... <snip>
The Patchen Bible seems to have a later start than the one I read.
People on the roads “trust each other??!” That’s why there are speed limits? (Let me guess: you don’t have a car.)
Still as far off the mark as usual. Two cars, a truck and a couple of bicycles. And too much time on the 101.
People get fined if they break the law. People obey the law so they won’t get fined.
There’s a principle in there somewhere. I think for a lot of people it stems from the phrase “to promote the general Welfare...”
Wrong yet again. People get fined if they break the law AND get caught by a cop. People who obey the law, because they appreciate the shared sense of trust and safety, tend to live longer but may still get fined by a cop with a quota. Not all fine-able offenses have to do with safety.
Back to basic civics class, kiddo. Or just drive through Santa Rosa on 101. Stay within the speed limit... and get flipped off.
Can't see where civics class did much good. I'll stick with civility and courtesy. Yeah, I've been flipped off by angry,stupid, impatient people on rare occasion. Was that you?
Valley Oak
01-07-2013, 08:10 AM
On December 14, 2012, a gunman entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and opened fire, killing 26 people, 20 of whom were children. Completely innocent unarmed victims.
Columbine. Red Lake Minnesota. Essex Vermont. Lancaster. Aurora. Virginia Tech. To name a few. How many more innocents must die at the hands of an antiquated and oft-misinterpreted amendment? Enough.
It's time to stop the violence.
Gun Control doesn't have to mean no guns. I'm not suggesting we take guns away. I'm suggesting we put tighter controls on acquiring and owning them. Gun show loopholes must be stopped. Ammunition should not be sold online. Mandatory wait periods should be enforced during which time a thorough background check, psychological and medical evaluation and character references should be completed. More accountability should be placed in the hands of retailers. When patrons refuse wait periods, authorities should be notified. Training and testing should be mandatory, as should a renewal process that includes many of the above-mentioned evaluation terms.
Gun owners and non-gun owners need to come together and agree on regulations that protect the right to own a firearm for sane, responsible adults and keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
I would hope that we could all agree to submit ourselves to these terms when it's easier to go to a gun show and pick up a firearm than it is to go to the local pharmacy and buy cold medication. Acquiring and owning a gun should be at least as controlled as getting a learner's permit, license and privilege to drive a car.
Gun control alone is not the whole of the solution, but it's a start. And if it keeps guns out of the hands of even one mentally unstable person and saves one sweet life, it's worth it.
Scooter
01-07-2013, 08:50 AM
I for one will be keeping my guns to protect myself from the emotionally disturbed people like Ed. He obviously can't have a discussion without resorting to violence.
Valley Oak
01-07-2013, 09:56 AM
It's funny to see how people who are against gun control will always try to change the subject.
Barry
01-07-2013, 10:57 AM
Please refrain from poking each other, including referencing any perceived taunts from earlier in this thread. :waccosun:
handy
01-07-2013, 12:05 PM
A bit of tongue in cheek sarcasm for your perusal and consideration. I love this guy!
https://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed247.htmlThe New Soviet Asylum
by Fred Reed (https://www.fredoneverything.net/)
Recently by Fred Reed: Dulce et Decorum (https://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed246.html)
Today I’m going to explain why gun-control is not only entirely reasonable but also certain to be effective. Only the ignorant can deny this.
First, some orientation. Cement-headed NRA types need to recognize, and state manfully, that the illegalization of guns is in fact perfectly practical. History has shown this repeatedly. When the government outlaws something that huge numbers of people very much want, the outlawed items immediately disappear from society. This has been shown countless times.
When Washington outlawed alcohol, booze vanished overnight and everyone stopped drinking. Can anyone deny this? When Washington banned the use of cannabis, all of those of us made insane by Reefer Madness quit smoking dope, and today there is probably not a town in America in which one might buy a joint. Similarly, Washington made illegal the downloading of copyrighted music – which also stopped immediately. No one now has illegal music. Ask your adolescent daughter.
So with guns. They are small, easily smuggled, of high value to criminals and will be of higher value when only criminals have them, so it is virtually certain that they will vanish when the government says so.
Mexico, where I live, has stringent laws against guns, which have proved at least a partial success. Criminals have AKs, RPGs, and grenades, while nobody else has anything. That’s a partial success, isn’t it?
While I am in favor of illegalizing guns and thus ending crime, I think the principle should be democratically applied. Let us begin by disarming the Pentagon. If this seems unreasonable, ask yourself: who kills more children in a month, Ritalin-addled little boys in America, or the US Air Force in every Moslem country it has heard of? All I ask is an honest body count. I will accept your numbers.
But let’s ask the question which, being critical, ain’t asked....
Continues at https://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed247.html
podfish
01-07-2013, 12:44 PM
A bit of tongue in cheek sarcasm for your perusal and consideration. I love this guy!
... When the government outlaws something that huge numbers of people very much want, the outlawed items immediately disappear from society. This has been shown countless times.
When Washington outlawed alcohol, booze vanished overnight and everyone stopped drinking.
I don't know, I like Dave Barry a lot more. His straw-man caricatures aren't quirky enough to catch my imagination.
And of course, that's all he's using - taking things to absurd extremes and making specious analogies. If the criteria for taking action is that a problem is completely solved, there won't be much action.
and somehow I don't think that arming the population in Mexico would bother the Zetas all that much. It'd just give them easier access to guns - they wouldn't need to get them from the US.
Valley Oak
01-07-2013, 12:58 PM
Thank you, Podfish. I had never heard of Dave Barry before. So, I looked up Dave Barry's website and blog:
I like Barry's fresh, humorous perspective on things.
Edward
I don't know, I like Dave Barry a lot more. His straw-man caricatures aren't quirky enough to catch my imagination.
And of course, that's all he's using - taking things to absurd extremes and making specious analogies. If the criteria for taking action is that a problem is completely solved, there won't be much action.
and somehow I don't think that arming the population in Mexico would bother the Zetas all that much. It'd just give them easier access to guns - they wouldn't need to get them from the US.
handy
01-07-2013, 01:57 PM
Thank you, Podfish. I had never heard of Dave Barry before. So, I looked up Dave Barry's website and blog:
I like Barry's fresh, humorous perspective on things as opposed to a redneck fascist/Libertarian gun-toting jingoist bigot homophobe like Fred Red.
-----------------------------------------
Bar (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/x-msg://806/)ry, I'd like to hear your input on this. I try to be civil, but sometimes....
Best regards, and thanks,
First, some technical explanation: The version that you received in your email, Handy, was a copy of Edward's public reply. Everybody who is subscribed to this thread for instant email updates (because of having posted to this thread or offerred gratitude on this thread) was sent a copy of that. Edward later edited his post.
Secondly, a confession: I have only skimmed this thread. It started when I was sick with the flu and I can't bring my self to go back and read it all.
While I have more space for name-calling of non-local public people, Edward's language did push it pretty far. As with dealing with members, please address the person's words or actions, rather than the person themselves and be specific.
Earlier in the thread I seem to remember offense being taken when it was not clearly being intended. Emotions have flared and sensitivities are raw on all sides. I'm glad there are no physical guns involved. :waccosun:
I'm not going try to parse out lapses of decorum any further, though I'm sure there's more on this thread. If it continues is this vein, I'm going to have to close the thread for the sake of rest of the community. Please settle down.
This discussion should be about ideas, values, policy, and compromise. It should not be about people. Please only continue if you can exercise some restraint and respect.
sandoak
01-07-2013, 02:59 PM
Discussions can be informative to wacco readers, or they can evolve to a point where the enthusiastic parties might better continue their talk over tea or coffee. I would hope they would be cordial in a place of public refreshment.
Meanwhile, folks may be interested to know that someone started a petition on SignOn, calling for WalMart to join Dick's Sporting Goods in voluntarily stopping sales of assault weapons: https://signon.org/sign/tell-wal-mart-stop-selling?source=homepage.
Valley Oak
01-07-2013, 03:13 PM
Thank you, Sandy. I signed the petition!
This is the kind of constructive action that needs to be taken, not the squabbling over the 2nd Amendment or about whether or not to do anything at all.
Edward
Discussions can be informative to wacco readers, or they can evolve to a point where the enthusiastic parties might better continue their talk over tea or coffee. I would hope they would be cordial in a place of public refreshment.
Meanwhile, folks may be interested to know that someone started a petition on SignOn, calling for WalMart to join Dick's Sporting Goods in voluntarily stopping sales of assault weapons: https://signon.org/sign/tell-wal-mart-stop-selling?source=homepage.
handy
01-07-2013, 04:02 PM
Thanks, Barry,
First, some technical explanation: The version that you received in your email, Handy, was a copy of Edward's public reply. Everybody who is subscribed to this thread for instant email updates (because of having posted to this thread or offerred gratitude on this thread) was sent a copy of that. Edward later edited his post.
I received the short version of his reply through the instant updates, as you said. The edit, with his hateful spew, was sent to me personally. I referred it back to the thread because I think his hatefulness should be public knowledge. Has anyone else here experienced this?
Secondly, a confession: I have only skimmed this thread. It started when I was sick with the flu and I can't bring my self to go back and read it all.
Boo, Flu! Hope you're feeling better.
While I have more space for name-calling of non-local public people, Edward's language did push it pretty far. As with dealing with members, please address the person's words or actions, rather than the person themselves and be specific.
Fair enough. Thanks. Although I thought I was being pretty specific...:wink:
To Edward: Anytime you send a modified answer to me personally, I will refer it back to the community thread. If you're going to be two-faced in your communication (attempts), I'm going to keep it public.
podfish
01-07-2013, 05:08 PM
... I received the short version of his reply through the instant updates, as you said. The edit, with his hateful spew, was sent to me personally.. I think Barry's explanation is correct; I got it too.
As you may have noticed, I frequently post without thinking, and have had to go back and edit. I've exploited the fact that only those already subscribed to the thread in question, plus those who by my bad luck use the site to read the post directly in the short time interval between thought and rethought, ever see the more poorly-expressed of the two posts. So I read the difference between the two versions as a cooler head prevailing...
(DAMN! an unintentional example! my grammar sucks... I had to go add the definite particle to my phrase...)
Valley Oak
01-07-2013, 07:08 PM
<article class="full-article">.
Frustrated Wayne LaPierre of NRA Thought Murder Of 20 Children By Crazed Gunman Would Have Blown Over By Now
ISSUE 49•02 (https://www.theonion.com/articles/frustrated-wayne-lapierre-thought-murder-of-20-chi,30813/) • Jan 7, 2013
FAIRFAX, VA—More than three weeks after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, annoyed NRA president Wayne LaPierre told reporters Monday that while he understands the seriousness of the tragedy, he had only assumed the senseless murder of 20 first-graders and six educators by a mentally unstable gunman would have blown over by now.
Noting that the massacre was “almost a month ago” and that all of the victims had been laid to rest, the frustrated lobbyist said he couldn’t help but think the nation’s continued efforts to mourn victims and its protracted discussions of gun control were “a little much” at this point.
“I get that this horrible thing happened and all these kids are dead now, but honestly, how long are we going to keep talking about this?” the gun advocate said as he scanned a recent editorial on weapons permits, adding that “enough’s enough, you know?” “Everywhere I go it’s Newtown this, Newtown that. Meanwhile, it’s 2013, and we’re still talking about some shooting that happened last year. Seriously, move on already.”
“I mean, jeez, it’s not as if talking about them will bring them back,” he added. “Let’s just get over it.”
The longtime NRA head acknowledged that as someone who has followed dozens of mass shootings over the years, he had anticipated roughly a week or so of mourning following the deadly tragedy, but “nothing like this, for God’s sake.”
In addition, LaPierre said he was deeply surprised and even somewhat irritated that discussion concerning the heartbreaking loss of young life and the efficacy of existing gun control laws had continued to persist into the new year “as if people had nothing better to do.”
“Look, I get it: A bunch of kids died, and it’s really fucking sad or whatnot, and blah blah blah, but it’s not the end of the world here, people—the beat goes on,” a visibly agitated LaPierre said. “Hell, people die in car accidents every day, and we don’t make a big stink about that. We don’t shut down—just totally shut down—everything for weeks so we can talk about it over and over and over again, do we? Of course not. Oh, but I guess I’m the bad guy for suggesting we get our priorities straight and stop acting like a bunch of mewling babies because of 20 dead kids. Is that it? I’m the bad guy?”
“Yeah, I’m the bad guy,” he added. “Fine.”
</article>
sharingwisdom
01-08-2013, 12:04 AM
What you quote are not facts to me. I don't subscribe to 5 corporate news service reporting of what happened in CT (anymore than I did about the 911 which I wrote about on this forum in '01). Ever hear of a false flag event? Ever hear of the movie, ‘Wag the Dog’? I've been collecting a great deal of information around CT and CO. that is leading in a direction that is not going to be comfortable for many people. There are too many discrepancies in the stories, from multiple shooters, to the car in the parking lot where the rifle was found not being Lanza's car, to the FBI failing to recover data from Lanza's computer though they could have, to police arresting a second man (on video), to the little 6 year old, Emily, who supposedly died but shows up two days later in a picture with the President. (And this is only the tip of the iceberg) There are many people, like in 911, that are calling for an independent investigation. My FB newsfeed is being supplied with great resources.
CT already had assault rifle gun control law. It was more strict than 1994 assault rifle bill. They also had a registration and people had to bring the guns to the state police barracks and be fingerprinted.
When the Occupy Movement was strong, many were up in arms (hands, not guns) about deception in the instigation of violence. In fact, articles were recently posted on this forum about the FBI setting up the violence. Well, why do you think things would change any differently? It's an established pattern for those who can see beyond the medias' propaganda.
I know Ted Gunderson personally (former head of LA FBI agency), and we've talked about all this. And I've talked to CIA agents. I just finished discussing this with a friend who is a police officer in another city in California. His police units don't trust the feds either and know that this is a set-up to get the guns away. A North Carolina Police Lieutenant just gave first hand knowledge of preparations being made within his own department to train and prepare for martial law in the US. And in Paragould, Arkansas there is martial law.
https://www.paragoulddailypress.com/articles/2012/12/15/top_story/doc50cbbb312e241511092932.txt
Diane Feinstein is setting up a bill to water down the 2nd amendment even though she had (or still has) a concealed gun permit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1EObqM9Z0s&feature=youtu.be
AND Harry Reid is on You Tube talking to the Clarke County Shooting Park saying that he carries a gun everywhere he goes and how important having one is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=flbzbFbKxK0
I have videos and articles of regular citizens who stopped robberies and slaughters that would have killed many if they didn't have a gun. I don't own a gun, but I will stand for We the People to keep our constitution intact.
From Wm Cooper's 1991 book, Behold a Pale Horse. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=551602638200964&set=o.225921714187943&type=1&theater
"…programs were put in place to create a dependent, non-working element in our society. The government then began to remove these programs to force people into criminal class that did not exist in the 50’s and 60’s.
The government encourages the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inoculated the desire in these people to open fire in schoolyards and thus inflame the anti-gun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd amendment.”
Why do 'They' want Americans disarmed ? - Aug 23, 1991 William Cooper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wb_OyFTi6QY
On December 14, 2012, a gunman entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and opened fire, killing 26 people, 20 of whom were children. Completely innocent unarmed victims.
Columbine. Red Lake Minnesota. Essex Vermont. Lancaster. Aurora. Virginia Tech. To name a few. How many more innocents must die at the hands of an antiquated and oft-misinterpreted amendment? Enough.
It's time to stop the violence.
Gun Control doesn't have to mean no guns. I'm not suggesting we take guns away. I'm suggesting we put tighter controls on acquiring and owning them. Gun show loopholes must be stopped. Ammunition should not be sold online. Mandatory wait periods should be enforced during which time a thorough background check, psychological and medical evaluation and character references should be completed. More accountability should be placed in the hands of retailers. When patrons refuse wait periods, authorities should be notified. Training and testing should be mandatory, as should a renewal process that includes many of the above-mentioned evaluation terms.
Gun owners and non-gun owners need to come together and agree on regulations that protect the right to own a firearm for sane, responsible adults and keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
I would hope that we could all agree to submit ourselves to these terms when it's easier to go to a gun show and pick up a firearm than it is to go to the local pharmacy and buy cold medication. Acquiring and owning a gun should be at least as controlled as getting a learner's permit, license and privilege to drive a car.
Gun control alone is not the whole of the solution, but it's a start. And if it keeps guns out of the hands of even one mentally unstable person and saves one sweet life, it's worth it.
Valley Oak
01-08-2013, 01:29 AM
.
Here are some more folks who are also adamant about possessing Assault Rifles:
.
20105
.
https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/kentucky-supreme-court-upholds-splc-s-crushing-legal-victory-against-notorious-kla
.
Kentucky Supreme Court Upholds SPLC’s Crushing Legal Victory Against Notorious Klan Leader
The SPLC’s case against the Klansmen responsible for the savage beating of a Latino teen (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/case-docket/jordan-gruver-v-imperial-klans-of-america) concluded with a victory this week when the Kentucky Supreme Court refused to reconsider a verdict against the former leader of the Imperial Klans of America (https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/imperial-klans-of-america) (IKA).
Ron Edwards, the former IKA leader, had appealed his $1.3 million share of a $2.5 million verdict awarded to Jordan Gruver after a trial in November 2008.
On the eve of trial, a book written by a former FBI agent came out that said Edwards was involved in a plot to kill SPLC founder and chief counsel Morris Dees when Dees was involved in a separate trial against the Aryan Nations in Idaho.
“Ron Edwards deliberately unleashed violent racists on an unsuspecting public, and Jordan Gruver paid the price,” said SPLC President Richard Cohen. “With this final ruling, the courts have rightfully held him accountable. This serves as a warning to other hate group leaders.”
The SPLC’s verdict against Edwards and one of his chief Klan lieutenants, Jarred Hensley, decimated the IKA.
As “imperial wizard” of the IKA, Edwards once sat atop a sprawling Klan organization. Based at a rural 15-acre compound in Dawson Springs, Ky., the IKA once had chapters in 25 states. The group hosted an annual gathering known as Nordic Fest, which brought together racist skinheads, neo-Nazis and Klansmen to network and listen to performances by hate rock bands. Speakers at the gathering called for the deaths of Latinos and Jews.
Today, because of the SPLC’s lawsuit, the IKA has been reduced to two chapters. Edwards is serving time in federal prison on gun and drug charges unrelated to the SPLC case.
Gruver, a U.S. citizen of Panamanian-Indian descent, was 16 when he was attacked by IKA members who were on a recruiting mission at a county fair in Brandenburg, Ky., in July 2006.
Unprovoked, the Klansmen threw whisky in his face, called him an “illegal spic” and beat him to the ground, kicking him with steel-toe boots as he curled into a fetal position and prayed for his survival. One of the Klansmen stood 6-foot-5 and weighed 300 pounds – towering over Gruver, who is only 5-foot-3 and weighed 150 pounds.
Gruver suffered injuries that included a broken jaw, broken teeth and permanent nerve damage. Doctors also diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition that plagued the teen with nightmares and flashbacks.
Shandi
01-08-2013, 06:23 AM
I'd love to see a "face analysis" of this guy.
<article class="full-article">Wayne LaPierre of NRA
https://o.onionstatic.com/images/19/19161/original/700.jpg?7274
</article>
Valley Oak
01-08-2013, 08:52 AM
This is just a parody published by "The Onion:"
https://www.theonion.com/articles/frustrated-wayne-lapierre-thought-murder-of-20-chi,30813/
The Onion is a humor and satirical publication available online that goes well beyond stretching the truth to even completely fabricating entire stories. The purpose of The Onion is to provide comedic relief and satirizing personalities, issues, and events to the point of being totally absurd. Therein lies the humor, which is why I posted it here.
The NRA leader's face is real, though, so an analysis would still be a good idea.
I'd love to see a "face analysis" of this guy.
Valley Oak
01-08-2013, 09:00 AM
.
Here is Roxanna Green, who lost her daughter to gun violence during the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in 2011. This is her message to us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs
.
My nine-year-old daughter, Christina-Taylor Green, was murdered with a gun in Tucson, Arizona two years ago today.
Since that day, far too many families have gone through similar pain.
Families in Aurora, Colorado. Families in Newtown, Connecticut. Families of the 33 people who are murdered with guns every single day across America.
How many more families need to feel that pain before our leaders take action? What will it take for them to find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby?
Today, please watch the TV ad I made with Mayors Against Illegal Guns and join me in calling on your leaders in Congress to Demand A Plan to end gun violence.
Thank you for supporting families like mine whose loved ones were murdered with guns,
Roxanna Green
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
We need legislation that will:
Require criminal background checks for ALL gun sales, including private sales
Ban assault weapons, including high-capacity magazines
Make gun trafficking a federal crime
You are brainwashed into believing ridiculous points of so-called fact.
Here is the real facts,
MEXICO- COMPLETE CIVILIAN GUN BAN
Highest crime rate in the world
The corrupt government and the gangs have complete control and are making billions a day. All forms of trafficking. I wonder if the U.S. has anything to do with all this death..
Oh wait we did all that, I forgot. And still drugs fill the streets. You have no idea.
UNITED KINGDOM has more total crime than ever now with their gun bans, very little shootings but the crazy people have proven that LESS GUNS EQUALS MORE CRIME
LESS GUNS EQUALS MORE CRIME!! LOOK IT UP cause I bet you never have.
And do you really think gangsters will ever give their guns away?
No.
No amount of legislation or imprisonment will stop them.
I bet you have never looked at how many pointless deaths have been prevented by armed citizens. I bet that is hard to find.
One would really have to stop reading mainstream newspapers to actually grow half a brain nowadays.
You trust in this government like a parrot to his pirate, just keep repeating the lies of your beloved Dinosaur media, they are the ones who need reevaluation.
and I am happy that not too many people are listening. Cause most people know life better than you.
Let's ban seratonin re-uptake inhibitors and the weasel media for all the insanity. And if you think shootings are bad now? BAHAAHA just wait till the government brings their newly- bought AP rounds here for my head.
I don't hate you for your beliefs, it is truly not your fault. Seriously.
By the way, give us some info instead of pulling on people's emotions. Support your statement that more guns means more crime, go ahead and try, heres mine.
And there is plenty more. People have been buying more guns in these years so you know
Our second amendment rights are long overdue a reevaluation. How many more senseless and entirely PREVENTABLE shootings have to occur before we do something about Gun Control.
As a citizen and constituent of this great country, I am asking that you take a firm stand and make a positive change by restricting access to guns and saving lives.
I don't have a gun. I don't want a gun. I don't need a gun. But somehow the guns always wind up in the hands of people crazy enough to use them irresponsibly and dangerously. This HAS TO BE STOPPED.
Valley Oak
01-08-2013, 04:00 PM
Another anti-gun control politician, Ron Paul, demonstrates that he is also a racist and a Confederate, who is vehemently opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. States' Rights do not have greater authority than the US Constitution.
We need a federal ban on Assault Rifles because the states are too irresponsible to do so. The states cannot be trusted to do the right thing and to respect the rights of minorities, such as African-Americans and Gays, especially in the old Slave States--the Confederacy--of which Ron Paul, a "Libertarian," is so proud of...
The following article was published by News One on Jan 20, 2012:
Ron Paul’s “South Was Right” Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag
Ron Paul has made no secret the fact that he thought that the South was right in the Civil War. Here he is giving a speech in front of a giant Confederate Flag about why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right.
Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate, and proud member of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which has been labeled as a neo-Confederate organization. In the video he claims that the North should have paid to buy slaves from southern slave owners to avoid the war, rather than the South renouncing slavery. Paul also fails to bring up the fact that it was the South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861.
Ron Paul was also was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 on its 40th anniversary in 2004. Paul would also claim that he wouldn’t have voted for it at the time, putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation, the two defining struggles of Black people in America.
Several Ron Paul supporters have asked that the video be taken down, from the pro-Confederate channel, Patriot Review but Patriot Review believes that the video could help Paul win South Carolina. If they do take it down, Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs (https://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39801_video-_ron_paul_gives_speech_on_civil_war_in_front_of_giant_confederate_flag) has downloaded a copy of the video.
Ron Paul Was Implicated In Failed White Supremacist Island Invasion
(https://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-was-implicated-in-attempted-white-supremacist-island-invasion/)
Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends, Supporters (https://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/)
bushin
01-08-2013, 06:32 PM
Thanks, Sandy.
Discussions can be informative to wacco readers, or they can evolve to a point where the enthusiastic parties might better continue their talk over tea or coffee. I would hope they would be cordial in a place of public refreshment.
Meanwhile, folks may be interested to know that someone started a petition on SignOn, calling for WalMart to join Dick's Sporting Goods in voluntarily stopping sales of assault weapons: https://signon.org/sign/tell-wal-mart-stop-selling?source=homepage.
Sara S
01-09-2013, 09:44 AM
Edward, this could be me! Except that I don't have an assault rifle, just a shotgun and a pistol....and my hair isn't quite that grey yet.
Just because I'm (a little) crazy, doesn't mean that I'll use my guns irresponsibly or dangerously; Michael Moore and I both still have our Junior NRA Certificates!
Thank you, Podfish. I had never heard of Dave Barry before. So, I looked up Dave Barry's website and blog:https://www.davebarry.comAND:https://blogs.herald.com/dave_barrys_blogI like Barry's fresh, humorous perspective on things.EdwardHi Ed.Will you read and comment to this information please?
After last summer’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado and last month’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, anti-gun advocates want you to believe that America is a nation infected with violent crimes and murders. They want you to believe that we are one, if not the, most violent nation in the world and that we have to rid the nation of guns to solve the problem.
But what are the real facts?
Amidst the Noise released a video on You Tube that provides some very stunning facts about violent crimes in the US and Great Britain that anti-gun advocates don’t want you to know this.
For instance, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Table 1, violent crimes in the US have dropped by nearly 50% in the last twenty years. In 1992, there were 757.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people. In 2011, there were only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people. That’s a reduction of 49%.
In the same Table 1, we also see that there were 9.3 homicides per 100,000 people in 1992 and that number dropped to 4.7 homicides per 100,000 in 2011. That’s a reduction of 49.4% in the homicide rate in the past twenty years.
SO many statements and all misleading. I don't want to create one of those unreadable posts with a zillion brief quotes. So let's try this format - I preserved a bunch of representative phrases:
... anti-gun advocates want you to believe that America is a nation infected with violent crimes and murders. They want you to believe that we are one, if not the, most violent nation in the world... violent crimes in the US have dropped by nearly 50% in the last twenty years... there were 762,515 violent crimes in the past year.... liberal anti-gun politicians don’t want you to know the real facts about guns and violence. If you knew the truth, they wouldn’t have any justifiable reason to try to outlaw and ban guns. All of the air goes out of their anti-gun balloon.The other truth revealed in the video is that inner-city culture is the real problem for a large percentage of the violent crimes that take place in the US. It’s not guns, it’s the people. And it’s the people who vote for Obama and others that want to ban and outlaw guns. In order to truly reduce violent crimes and deaths by guns, you have to change the culture. Unfortunately, Obama’s politics only help to reinforce the current culture and keep the people trapped in it.The inner city culture is like a frog in a pot of water..... He has no desire or intention of dealing with the real issues, but would rather use them to promote his socialistic agenda
America -is- a nation infected with violent crimes and murders. I'm glad it's not as bad as it's been, but it should be better. Many other countries are less violent. Some aren't.
.. saying (they) "don't want you to know .. facts" is a stupid argument, nearly impossible to back up. It reveals a resistance to engage in a real dialog by demonizing your opponents. And the conclusion (there's no longer a) "justifiable reason" is an indefensible claim, too. Sure there are reasons.
When dealing with phrases that are code-words for racist attitudes, it behooves you to be careful. Unless you really do mean to claim it's those inner-city black thugs who are a large percentage (and the real core) of Obama's constituency. Funny, I don't think there are all that many in that demographic, whether or not they're over-represented in gun violence. The crimes that are currently getting all the attention don't come from that demographic at all.
Frogs in hot water?? that's not really true either; a goofy folksy aphorism that you accept as a model of reality leads to a warped view of reality.
and just saying that Obama has a socialist agenda and is actually a heartless, unempathetic individual doesn't make it true. Instead, most of his most vocal opponents seem determined to come across that way themselves.
there may well be a case that gun control is unnecessary, but despite all the random stats and indefensible allegations in that post, it doesn't advance such a case at all.
Barry
01-15-2013, 10:27 PM
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2013-01-15_2225.pngThe Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
https://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35By Thom Hartmann (https://truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/44701), Truthout (https://truth-out.org/) | News Analysis
https://truth-out.org/images/2013_0115gun_.jpgThe real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review (https://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm) in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."
It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by (https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=ztD3mRMdqSw)Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
Sally E. Haden, in her book (https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Patrols-Violence-Carolinas-Historical/dp/0674012348/)Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.
And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.
Continues at https://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
busyb555
01-16-2013, 07:42 AM
I hope Barry [he's referring to the President] takes the "kingly" steps he is now talking about. Can you say IMPEACHMENT?
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ooyalaPlayer_5ef4_hbzb48ta" width="480" height="270" codebase="https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/swflash.cab">https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2013-01-16_1026.png
National Rifle Association President David Keene tells Newsmax that President Obama could be violating the Constitution if he circumvents Congress and imposes gun control by executive order — and his presidency will be “at risk” if he proceeds.
Keene also says gun control advocates will ultimately fail in their efforts to ban assault weapons, despite Obama’s “rabid advisers” who will push the ban.
And he asserts that the administration is asking the “wrong questions” in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings and is instead seeking to politicize the tragedy
Keene assumed the presidency of the NRA and its 4-million-plus members in May 2011. Previously he served as chairman of the American Conservative Union from 1984 to 1991.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Tuesday, Keene reacts to the president’s warning on Monday that he would take “executive action” to impose gun control.
“Our concern is the same that most Americans should have whenever a president tries to circumvent Congress, because what the president is really saying is ‘I’m going to do these things myself, and I’m not going to submit them to the representatives of the people.’
“We don’t know what he’s going to try to do by executive order. There are obviously some things he can’t do and there are some things he shouldn’t be doing, but in order to implement these various changes he’s going to have to go to Congress to get the money to fund it. So there are going to be votes on these things, there is going to be a debate in Congress, and our members and other gun owners, and believers of the Second Amendment, are going to have the right to be heard.”
Continues at https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/keene-obama-gun-ban/2013/01/15/id/471594
</object>
handy
01-16-2013, 07:57 AM
...the opponents of public gun ownership don't hate guns. They hate the public.
Recently by Steven Greenhut: Rose Parade Military Propaganda (https://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut69.1.html)
Throughout the blog-o-sphere, I’ve been reading about how much liberals, such as those in the Obama administration and the Democrats who run our state government in California, hate guns. The term "gun-haters" can be found in countless articles written by conservatives about advocates for gun control, with one publication (https://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/the-big-list-of-who-hates-guns/) listing myriad "gun-hating" organizations.
No doubt, the politicians and groups named in these articles and lists are advocates for gun-control measures, but they absolutely, positively do not hate guns. In fact, these folks love guns. Their entire political philosophy is based on their adoration of big guns and small ones, without which they could accomplish none of their goals.
Readers can see where I’m headed. Our enemies in the gun-rights battle don’t hate or dislike guns per se, but hate the idea of average citizens having access to them. I’ve never heard a gun-controller complain about the way police are now outfitted with military-style uniforms and granted firearms worthy of an invading army. No one seems to complain about the military’s immense firepower and its stockpiling of even nuclear weapons.
Obviously, I’m playing a semantic game, and semantic games can be annoying. (I get tired, for instance, of readers emailing me to complain that I used the term government "worker" rather than government "employee." I get their semantic point, but government employees do actually work for their money even if the work they do is wasteful, unnecessary and coercive.) My semantic game, by contrast, illustrates a valuable point. This current "gun" debate isn’t about whether guns are good or bad or whether we love them or hate them but about which particular groups of people are entitled to own them.
The founding publisher of the Orange County Register used to refer to the public-school system as "gun-run schools." His point was that the current school system is based, ultimately on the use of guns by the authorities. If we don’t pay our taxes or follow compulsory-education laws, then well-pensioned officials in uniforms show up at our door with weapons to haul us away to jail. If we resist or run away, those authorities will shoot us.
I personally don’t like guns, yet I purchased two shotguns and would use them if necessary. It’s no different than my lawn tractor. I don’t particularly like it either – with those dangerous spinning blades that could cut off my legs – but it beats trying to cut my six acres of two-foot-high grass with a scissors. I don’t like target shooting, so the guns are simply a tool. In the popular view, though, I am a gun-lover because I believe in the right of average folks to own them.
A liberal gun-banner might personally dislike firearms also, but that person’s support of firearm ownership by the authorities ought to put them in the category of gun-lover also. A true gun-hater would be someone who wanted to ban all weapons from all people and all governments – a naïve notion given the unfortunate flaws found in human nature.
Without the authorities toting guns, liberals couldn’t force us to do all the things they constantly are forcing us to do. Conservatives don’t want us to resist their plans either, but at least they are more consistent – they want the government to be armed to the teeth, but they are willing to allow the rest of us to be armed also, although to a lesser degree.
Conservatives are aghast whenever some lefty legislator, media celebrity or politician is caught using a firearm (or when their paid bodyguards tote such arms). I agree that such behavior is ridiculous, but it isn’t really hypocritical when a so-called gun-hater is caught depending on a gun for their personal safety. As good progressives, they believe that they are members of an elite that has special privileges the lesser folks should not have.
I know cops who won’t go anywhere off-duty without a weapon even though they disdain the idea that the rest of us should have similar protections. Never mind that private citizens are more responsible with their weapons than government officials, perhaps because government officials know they have immunities that the rest of us do not enjoy.
I’m sure the "gun-hater" moniker won’t go away, but let’s at least remind Americans whenever possible that the opponents of public gun ownership don't hate guns. They hate the public.
...the opponents of public gun ownership don't hate guns. They hate the public. sure they do. It's obvious on its face, so why deny it? I think they hate puppies too.
In fact, these folks love guns. Their entire political philosophy is based on their adoration of big guns and small ones, without which they could accomplish none of their goals.... I’ve never heard a gun-controller complain about the way police are now outfitted with military-style uniforms and granted firearms worthy of an invading army. No one seems to complain about the military’s immense firepower and its stockpiling of even nuclear weapons.
right, that's true too. (I'm sure we all know what their "goals" are, so I won't elaborate that). I think liberals are mostly known for their love of the military and support of the arms race. Wasn't that MLK's big issue? I know he had opinions about the military's involvement in Vietnam, I just forget the details...
The founding publisher of the Orange County Register used to refer to the public-school system as "gun-run schools." His point was that the current school system is based, ultimately on the use of guns by the authorities. If we don’t pay our taxes or follow compulsory-education laws, then well-pensioned officials in uniforms show up at our door with weapons to haul us away to jail. If we resist or run away, those authorities will shoot us.well, to be fair, in eras before guns, the authorities showed up with swords or clubs. The author seems to think authorities were helpless to enforce laws without a disarmed population.
Conservatives are aghast whenever some lefty legislator, media celebrity or politician is caught using a firearm (or when their paid bodyguards tote such arms). they're aghast all the time when reality intrudes on the world-view they've developed independent of observation of actual people instead of the cartoon characters they create in their heads. That seems to be their natural state of being.
Twisted Minis
01-16-2013, 01:10 PM
I would like to encourage everyone to read this article. It comes from a person that is not pro gun, but I feel it is well written and worth reading:
I thought this was a well written moderate essay. Even read a few pages of comments; also interesting.
podfish
01-16-2013, 01:50 PM
I would like to encourage everyone to read this article. It comes from a person that is not pro gun, but I feel it is well written and worth reading:
https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324081704578235460300469292.html?mod=googlenews_wsjHis description of what happened may be accurate, but his attribution of causes and effects is nothing more than his opinion.<br><br>The one that jumps out at me is his observation that homicides tripled from 1976 to 1993. He presumes that it's due to the new gun law. Others have made the case that it coincided with the crack epidemic.<br><br>Some of his other observations pertain to the poor enforcement and implementation of the laws. Again, you take from those observations whatever lessons you will - they aren't necessarily the ones he identifies.
Twisted Minis
01-16-2013, 02:05 PM
I didn't gather anything about poor enforcement of the law being the issue. But if you want to talk about poor enforcement of these gun laws, look at this:
This man, on live television, possessed a "high capacity" magazine, in D.C. where that is a felony. Same as here in CA. He will not be charged. Now if I where to do that, I would be charged and made an example of. But it's okay for him.
I don't think more gun laws are the answer to ending violence. Our society has many issues as a whole, and all of them need to be addressed.
podfish
01-18-2013, 09:08 AM
This guy's expressing a point of view that I find very convincing. He's got some pithy quotes, too:
The NRA fantasy that true safety only derives from an openly armed population is not only indulgent, it ignores both human nature and history. It is a philosophy that offers false comfort to frightened individuals and would do nothing for our collective safety. .... It is a mark of all we have accomplished in our two-and-a-half-century history that we do not settle our disagreements with weapons, nor do we avoid voicing those disagreements for fear of getting shot. Calls for more citizens to regularly carry guns should be viewed with great skepticism by both NRA members and gun-control advocates alike. We need to remember that we are not a state on the brink of failure. The overwhelming majority of us are not in mortal danger and we do not need to be packing heat to protect our honor. A greater public role for private guns would not add to our freedom; it would detract from it.
You and Carter have this all wrong. Check out what the Carter study showed and what has happened when guns in the hands of citizens lowered crime, especially violent crime.
Bruce
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2013-01-18_1306.png
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
HOW OBAMA'S GUN 'ORDER' WILL BACKFIRE
Exclusive: David Kupelian on what happened last time a president made same demand
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/#F7G5STgb5LxeZgZ2.99
(https://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/#F7G5STgb5LxeZgZ2.99)Among the 23 “executive actions” President Obama announced yesterday amidst great fanfare (and shameless exploitation of children) is this:
“Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
Obama may want to put a hold on that one, until he comes to grips with what happened the last time a U.S. president tried it.
During the late ’70s, President Jimmy Carter and his inner circle determined to push through comprehensive new federal gun-control legislation. They decided the best way to grease the congressional skids would be to have a massive scientific study conducted which, in the end, would proclaim that gun-control laws were effective in reducing crime.
So the Carter folks handed out a major gun-control research grant to University of Massachusetts sociology professor James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. They spent four years and lots of tax dollars to produce what would be the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research – an exhaustive, three-volume work titled “Under the Gun.”
There was only one problem.
Their findings, summarized starkly by co-author Wright, were that “Gun control laws do not reduce crime.”
“When Wright, Rossi and Daly produced their report for the National Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write,” explained David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute and co-author of the law school textbook, “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.” “Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America’s 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence.”
Among their many findings:
[*=left]The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states.
[*=left]Detroit’s law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns.
[*=left]Washington, D.C.’s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation’s capital.
[*=left]Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored “more gun control” were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most people have no idea how strict gun laws already are.
“As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun-control advocates,” said Kopel, “and had been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence.”
Get autographed copies of both of David Kupelian’s classics: “The Marketing of Evil” and “How Evil Works.”
Fast-forward to the late ’80s, when the women of Orlando, Fla., were terrified of being sexually attacked, since 33 women had already been raped in just one nine-month period. After people began flocking to gun stores to protect themselves, the Orlando Sun-Sentinel newspaper got together with the police to offer a firearms safety course.
It was all very well publicized. Everybody knew that in Orlando there were 6,000 women who had handguns and knew how to use them. The result was that in the following nine-month period, there were only three rapes. In addition, crime in general declined. The fact is, Orlando, Fla., was the only U.S. city with a population of over 100,000 that had a reduction in crime that year.
In fact, it is not only Orlando that experienced a dramatic decrease in crime. After the 1987 Florida right-to-carry legislation, homicide, firearm homicide and handgun homicide rates all decreased. Eight of Florida’s 10 largest cities experienced drastic decreases in homicide rates from 1987 through 1995: Jacksonville, down 46 percent; Miami, down 13 percent; Tampa Bay, down 24 percent; Orlando, down 41 percent; Fort Lauderdale, down 53 percent; Hollywood, down 30 percent; Clearwater, down 21 percent; and Miami Beach down an incredible 93 percent.
Opponents of Florida’s right-to-carry legislation claimed their state would become known as the “Gunshine State.” But the last quarter century’s actual experience (as of mid-2011, Florida has issued a total of 2,031,106 concealed-carry permits under the 1987 law) proves Florida’s trailblazing program to fight crime has been a tremendous success. As U.S. Sen. Orin Hatch, R- Utah, put it: “The effect of that legislation on state crime rates has been astonishing. The predictions of the gun-control advocates were wrong, flat wrong.”
But no matter. Politicians and others intent on restricting or eliminating firearms ownership ignore mountains of evidence, virtually all of which points to the same conclusion – that guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens always, in all places and times, result in a safer, more secure and more civilized society.
Therefore, if the Centers for Disease Control, at Obama’s direction, actually conducts honest research – and that’s a magnum-caliber “if” – it will arrive at the same conclusion as Jimmy Carter’s research team: Their basic premise is wrong.
As John Lott, former chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, crime-statistic researcher and author of the widely cited book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” reiterated today:“Gun control just does not work. Indeed, it makes things worse.
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/#F7G5STgb5LxeZgZ2.99
Not at all equal. Safety on the roads occurs because we, as individuals, trust each other to follow agreed upon rules. Force is only applied to those who break that trust, as it should be.
Confiscation by force, from people who didn't shoot anybody is not in the same ballpark at all.
Barry
01-18-2013, 01:24 PM
You and Carter have this all wrong. Check out what the Carter study showed and what has happened when guns in the hands of citizens lowered crime, especially violent crime.
Bruce
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2013-01-18_1306.png
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
HOW OBAMA'S GUN 'ORDER' WILL BACKFIRE
Consider your source, Bruce.
Here's WND's full Masthead (Note the arrow that I added):
The Whistleblower is "WND's highly acclaimed monthly magazine". There's a legitimate discussion about what the best policies are regarding gun control and many other issues, but accusing Obama of being "The First Must Muslim President" is way into the lunatic realm, in that it has no relation to truth and is just intended to inflame baseless fears.
I strongly encourage you, Bruce, my friend, to unplug from such toxic dis-information. Further, I ask you to stop reposting WND's highly skewed content here. :waccosun: