It's quite passionate and worth a watch:
Printable View
It's quite passionate and worth a watch:
Too bad it is total hypocrisy. You can't lament gun violence in this country at the same time you are subjecting whole populations, in numerous countries around the world, to violence and bloodshed, killing innocents by the hundreds and thousands.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Well, you can, and then you get what we've got - a nation of people who complain about gun violence in this country while they are indifferent or simply unaware of the violence created by "U.S. Foreign Policy".
It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
https://theantimedia.org/day-after-w...n-afghanistan/
A very intelligent and thoughtful response by Obama.
Thank you for pointing out the enormous elephant in the broom closet -- when so much information is available about how the political/economic world actually works, and what American history -- the real history, not the corporate-sanctioned versions -- tells us about how "our" government operates, I continue to be stunned and stupefied by those who continue to flit like moths to the flame of American hubris. Obama is a corporate-owned thug, an imperialist, an apologist for environmental pillage, and a war criminal. If you won't take my word for that opinion, check out the well-researched work of Paul Street, Andrew Levine, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, or any of many other observers and writers -- that is, if you're willing to ask questions -- the most vital responsibility of citizens in a democracy. Apparently lots of Americans are OK with simply buying the latest issue of bullshit from the president of the freely delusional world.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by john2525:
Peter, are you for or against gun control?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
Edward,Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
that's a fully loaded (please excuse the tasteless pun) question that I'm not prepared to answer without numerous caveats and provisions, and even a prolonged discussion would leave me without a definitive yes or a no response. I've always been opposed to violence against other living beings (property is another matter), and guns have long since replaced reason, rationality, and creativity as a method to address differences. But guns are but one tangible symptom of a culture that has failed to grasp its own history, steeped as it is in guns and other means of force and violence.
I think, as a society, the first guns that need to be controlled are the real and figurative ones the U. S. government keeps pointed at our heads: nuclear weapons, an insanely toxic, disruptive, destructive, and belligerent military presence all over the world, economic sanctions, institutionalized racism and classism, subversive operations by the CIA, Interpol, NED, NSA, et al., poisoning and destruction of life by corporations and government, and so on. Gun control -- really, weapons and force control -- needs to be accomplished holistically and systemically, which means a complete shift away from the fundamental American paradigm of physical force and violence at every level of government and law enforcement.
Were gun control to become a reality, the police would also need to give up their guns, we would need to create alternatives to mass incarceration and the corrupt, racist judicial system, and this country would need to eliminate the military in favor of a commitment to service for peace, diplomacy, and human and ecological needs. Force -- whether physical, economic, psychological, or otherwise -- is a symptom of the massive psychological disease afflicting this country. Gun use is but one notable indicator of the systemic sickness that wields force as the primary method for human interaction.
Unfortunately, this tragic event has been seen as “engineered” by many people in this country and around the world … trust in the US government is at an all time low … it doesn't help that several of these shooters have complained of government harassment before they did their deeds …
This video has been circulating on the internet with many people endorsing it … whether you agree with it or not, I think that it points to the distrust that I'm writing about …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNV2HBXF8S0
Peter, I support gun control.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
That's great, Edward. And, as Sempervirens pointed out, those words (by themselves) are quite meaningless. And I don't mean they need action to back them up, I mean that they need a lot of detail to make them meaningful.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Also, Sempervirens, in this age of corporate owned government, it goes without saying that any president is a puppet, given marching orders by their masters.
Yes, and the president, the Congress, much of the judicial system, and virtually all politicians willfully collaborate with corporations and big finance to fulfill the capitalist agenda.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by john2525:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10...n-their-hands/
And here are some words about the "masters." https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10...-ruling-class/Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by john2525:
Here's Obama's speech about the latest American-NATO war crime in Afghanistan, the bombing of a hospital and the murder of doctors and civilians:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
i guess... I mean, it's hard to disagree that we're pretty far from a humanistic utopia. The world you envision is admirable, but since no-one in the forseeable future will live in anything like it, I prefer a more practical look at the merits or lack thereof of gun control. In particular, since you touch on the idea, that guns in private hands keep the oppressors from imposing even more oppression on the general population. (The other, that a society full of guns keeps individuals safer from each other than one without so many guns, we'll leave for later).Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
But the world is full of examples, as is history, of societies that are more or less armed. I can't think of one where the population is heavily armed and there's any sort of peaceful or equitable social order - certainly not a society that's close to what you describe as ideal. Societies that have many of the same forces as ours (e.g the UK, Australia, Japan, or Korea) with fewer guns are generally more peaceful and their citizens seem to consider themselves our equals regarding freedom from oppression. Of course, to many Americans, who prize extreme individuality over any sense of social obligations, those are societies that have already succumbed to subjugation. Live free and die! that's much more our motto. I think it's the metaphorical emasculation implied by a government with guns when citizens are disarmed that bothers a lot of people. That, and an unreasoning fear that is assuaged with close proximity to a totem of power. Look at the Jade Helm reaction, for example; the idea that an armed civilian population really can attempt to counter a well-trained, well-supplied military is patently foolish but those forming amateur militias sure seemed to feel better. And feeling trumps thinking any time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYukNeomfQ
Published on Oct 5, 2015
New research indicates that Police Officers who work in states with the most relaxed gun laws are more likely to die as a result of gun violence. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks discuss. Tell us what you think in the comment section below. Read more here: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-...
"Police officers are most likely to be killed in states where the most people own guns, a new study finds. The report is sure to be controversial, but it adds a new dimension to a conversation that's recently been focused more on police shootings of unarmed Americans. This study looks at who's killing the cops, and it's overwhelmingly people with private guns, David Swedler of the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health found. "If we're interested in protecting police officers, we need to look at what's killing them, and what's killing them is guns," says Swedler."*
I've never been interested in guns or any other substance or weapon that could harm or kill a living creature ... I always thought that violence was an act of cowardice, advanced bullying perhaps .... I walked around in this delusional bubble most of my life thinking that people were basically good and that no one would ever hurt me without just cause to do so ... well that stupid fantasy almost cost me my life ....
After calling the police on criminals, I became a crime victim ... some of these crimes were so dangerous that they could have killed me, like cutting the brake lines on my car, or blocking my household vents to allow a build up of carbon monoxide in my home ... these crimes were witnessed, well documented and I have the backing of a couple of psychiatrists to prove that these crimes are not in my imagination ... suddenly, I considered owning a gun and I finally understood why one would want to do this ... I also understood why our founding fathers gave us that right in our constitution ... you remember the constitution, don't you? .... gun ownership is the right to protect ourselves ....
You might say that this right endangers us all ... it would seem that way, but let's look at the statistics ...
https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ord-gun-sales/
Peter, I read your personal profile. In it, you state the following, "Calling out collective delusion, myopia, and denial."
I very strongly recommend that you start by looking in the mirror.
I also noticed that you created your Wacco account one day after the "Obama's full speech" thread was posted.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
certainly we all suffer from myopia - it's inevitable because none of us has a perfect view of everything that goes on in the world; there will always be important things we can't see. The problem I have with the Counterpunch congregation is their seamless slide from broad generalization about the nature of human societies, especially economic ones, into seeing specific planned and organized conspiricies. The easy example is the Trilateral Commission, since it rose to prominence when I was the right age to notice. Or the Carlisle Group, similar but arising a bit later. Are they secretive powerful highly-functional, highly-proactive organizations that somehow failed to fully hide themselves from the public at large? or are they groups of like-minded powerful people with an agenda to shape the world in their favor? I think there's a pill that makes any distinction between those two descriptions invisible.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
The other terms should go away too. (Sorry, SV, don't really mean to pick on you personally) but the terms 'denier' and the description 'delusional' have become meaningless. As has the claim that one's brave enough to focus on 'truth'. They've just become indicators that an idea or topic has polarized partisans.
I too have never been interested in guns or weapons of any kind. I was a very quiet, shy child, exposed to domestic violence. This created a hyper vigilance to watch for the preliminary signs coming from the combination of mental illness and alcohol. At 5 years of age, I saved my mother from being stabbed in the back, when I screamed a warning. During that same period, I threatened a man who was having an affair with my mother, with the claw end of a hammer. I remember feeling no hesitation to strike him, but he left quickly, so I didn't complete my intended act.
As a child, I lived with the violence of physical abuse where various items were used to punish me. I was a target for my alcoholic father's anger and frustration. I left home at 12 because I could see that I wouldn't survive this environment. I vowed that I would never allow anyone to physically abuse me again. I've been fortunate not to have to resort to violence to protect myself.
But I do think about what I would do if confronted by an intruder. A gun is the best defense, for avoiding physical harm. I'm curious about how others might defend themselves in such a situation. Or is it something we prefer not to consider.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
maybe a way to think of it is to substitute 'dog' for 'gun'.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Would you get a big fierce dog for protection? You'd be glad you had if someone is prevented from attacking you by your dog - but, till then, you have a big fierce dog. The world's a different place if you have a bunch of big fierce dogs in the neighborhood.
It seems that many people don't realize that a dog of any size isn't realistic for everyone. A dog is a live being that requires care and feeding. I've heard from many people living in the country about the joys of a bunch of fierce dogs in the neighborhood. Yet, the country seems like the best place for a large dog, but there are many other considerations. A gun is my choice of protection, since I'm no longer capable of having or caring for a dog.
So a dog isn't a simple replacement for a gun.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Shandi, have you forgotten what this thread is about? A pro-gun nut job murdered 9 people in a community college in Oregon and president Obama wants this peculiar American tragedy to change.
Just one problem: people like you.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
my point is that a gun isn't a simple replacement for a dog either. It may sit there quietly in the drawer, or it may not. Someone may use it for purposes you never intended.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
The problem is in the side effects. Just like you can't have a big dog without a ton of adjustments to society - you have to care for it and feed it, and your neighborhood is affected by it, and it can get loose, etc. - you can't have a gun in your drawer without the neighborhood being affected by it. Your gun isn't the only one in the world, so now we have an infrastructure where guns are made widely available, and considered a normal object to have around. So people will use them for purposes beyond defense against an intruder, just like your dog won't be invisible except when you're attacked. It's the opposite - if you have a big dog, you'll probably never be in a situation where it saves you but you'll sure live with the effects of ownership. If you have a gun in a drawer, you are living in a world shaped by the fact that there are lots of guns, not all of them safely in drawers.
I'm thinking that pro/anti gun ownership is kind of like religion. If you've chosen one over the other, someone from another sect isn't going to convince you to join them in their beliefs.
I'm not saying that anyone one should be able to buy guns, without a background check, but even then someone with mental illness may not show up in a background check.
Most criminals know how to get guns without a background check. Many members of the police force are suffering from PTSD and other mental illness, but they are authorized to carry and use guns. It has been shown that many mass murders are committed by people on certain prescription medications, so that should also be part of screening for gun purchase.
I know someone who's mentally ill, and sometimes violent, but has no criminal record. He can't afford a gun, and has no inclination toward them.
I look forward to hearing other more objective opinions. But maybe opinions by nature aren't objective.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I have already mentioned the Constitution and presented statistics which have been completely ignored ... our Constitution has already been shredded and we are now spied upon, punished for free speech, indefinitely detained and even murdered without any due process at all ... as Americans, how far do we allow this to go?
This is Judge Napolitano's opinion on the matter, a man whom I admire and agree with ...
https://www.creators.com/opinion/jud...overnment.html
Most people will only be moved to do something if they experience the harm first hand, and will still believe that our government is benign, in spite of any evidence to the contrary. Truth messengers are seen as the enemy.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
I hesitate to bring this up because opinions regarding guns and gun control are intense; but I'm just going to put it out there. I would like to see the Second Amendment repealed. My reason for feeling this way is that I don't think that 'bearing arms' should be a right. I would like to see it reconfigured as a privilege that is earned by meeting certain criteria. As long as the Second Amendment is in the Constitution a case can be made that bearing arms is a natural right; like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I'm not actually against gun ownership. When I lived in Alaska I owned rifles and pistols. I hunted and liked to target shoot with friends. So I get it when pro-gun people argue against gun control. I don't agree with it, but I get it.
My feeling is that driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege and in the same way, and for many of the same reasons, owning a gun should be a privilege, a privilege that is regulated. We have age restrictions for driving, restrictions based on background history, and other limitations apply. In the same way I think gun ownership should be subject to limitations. We have limitations on driving because driving is dangerous and can easily inflict harm on other people. In the same way guns are dangerous and can inflict harm on other people.
As a society we have no difficulty placing restrictions on driving, but because gun ownership is enshrined in the Bill of Rights we put gun ownership in a different category. Driving is a privilege but gun ownership is a right. I would like to see gun ownership as privilege and not as a right. I don't know how the results of repeal would manifest; I mean the specifics of how that would change laws. But I think it would change the conversation and bring it down to a more practical level, like when we have discussions about regulations for having a license.
I know this is a position that will be resented by many and others might view it as utopian, Nevertheless I offer it as a possible way of reconfiguring the current situation.
I never did buy that gun because I am a non-violent person, and possibly because of that decision, my harassment continues ... obviously, we have criminals in this country that believe that it is appropriate to attack an unarmed single woman ... that's what we're up against ...
I don't know if people understand how bad things are in this country ... I am one of thousands who are seriously harassed for telling the truth ... people are losing their homes because of illegal foreclosures ... the courts are often corrupt and unable to give justice to these people ... people are losing their children due to questionable CPS procedures and once again the courts are not providing justice ... in other words, they are completely ignoring the Constitution ...
Corporate interests are stealing more power as I write this with the recent agreements concerning the TPP ... the police continue to exhibit unnecessary brutality ... and it goes on and on and on .... in the face of all of this Americans do not want to give up their guns ... they've never felt more threatened as a nation ... some think that there's been a covert coup ... there is talk of military action and mass arrests to restore the republic ...
Even in Oregon, the families do not want to see Obama because they think that he will politicize their grief ...
good luck with amending the constitution, or what's left of it ...
https://nation.foxnews.com/2015/10/0...?section=10368
There are those who feel that the purpose of the second amendment is to empower individuals in a way that limits the power of the government. And they really, really think that arms are a key factor in limiting that power. So you won't get them to agree. And others who might accept in theory that it should be a privilege think that they may need to defend themselves with arms, so unless they're sure they won't be denied the privilege themselves, they won't agree either.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
and as an independent critique, I don't think these are parallel ideas. Driving on public roads is a privilege, but I can drive on private property anytime I like. And I can possess my car in public places. We already have laws against shooting in public places - actually, even on private property in most populated areas - and laws against possessing guns in other public places. So they are indeed more restricted than cars.
We American haven't "succumbed to subjugation"? We live free? " . . . Feeling trumps thinking . . .". Perhaps you are thinking practically, and that is the bottom line for me: this nation has fallen to the bottom of the barrel in terms of public discourse and collective responsibility. That might be "practical," but the reality is that the rot of American values is taking down the whole planet, while all most of us can think about is our own misbegotten "rights" and to hell with the big picture of cultivating a world and a society that's fit for future generations to live in. Pragmatism is a cop-out when we all know we could be doing a lot more to effect change for the better. The status quo isn't working, in case you haven't noticed.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I'd appreciate a bit more analysis if you're going to argue the conservative opinion. I ask that because I think that some exposure of the fundamental perspectives of "those . . . who really, really think that arms are a key in limiting power" is essential towards demonstrating that the premise is invalid. " . . . You won't get them to agree" is further capitulation to the inevitable human destiny of pandemic ignorance. Consider, if you will, that humans still might possess some capacity for a change of behavior.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
What proportion of gun owners really believes the Second Amendment is a check against totalitarianism? That's rhetorical -- I don't expect a number. Who among the gun crowd has any realistic plan to organize a coup against the corporate-financial-military complex? Who among them is willing to forsake a contrived economy that feeds on extraction, consumption, greed, and death? The fact that no such plan exists and that most gun advocates are devout capitalists say all I need to know about the real agenda for many gun advocates: give me mine and to hell with the rest of the planet. Just leave me alone and don't tax me, and I'll shoot anyone (and that is intentionally hyperbolic, because it has happened plenty of times) who tries to take away my divine entitlement.
I suppose it's up to the rest of us to demonstrate that life is about more than remaining entrenched in outdated, ineffective, self-defeating attitudes.
As I wrote earlier -- this is not about gun owners and advocates, it's about all of us and our entire culture. No guns for anyone, and that starts at the top.