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.
Podfish, you raise good points. I understand that the comparison between driving and owning a gun is not perfect; but I think there is enough commonality to make the comparison useful. And I get that it would not be easy to repeal the second amendment. It is difficult to change the constitution.
But there is precedent. The article that enacted prohibition was repealed by what is probably the simplest amendment to the constitution. In a similar way I think the focus could be an amendment that would say, 'The second amendment to the constitution is hereby repealed.' And leave it at that.
This would change the conversation and allow for a more nuanced discussion. I don't view such a repeal as anti-gun; rather I think of it as anti-gun rights.
It's a long shot (joke intended), but stranger things have happened.
I agree, Jim.
Some of the things I would like to see:
1. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.
2. Government issued gun possession with tough requirements.
3. A government registered ownership deed for each individual gun.
4. A very strict legal limitation on the number of guns a person can own.
5. Every gun must have a unique serial number.
6. Every gun must have a tracking device.
7. Every gun must have characteristics that identify it from others, such as a striking "fingerprint" and barrel thread markers that help distinguish it from other guns.
8. Gun legislation mimicking Australian legislation, which has been astonishingly successful.
9. Permanent restriction from ever owning a gun for anyone who has ever been convicted of any felony or any misdemeanor.
10. Very thorough background checks.
11. An exhaustive mental health evaluation for anyone who solicits the government for any type of gun.
12. A minimum 100% tax (based on the price of the gun purchase).
13. Submission to drug testing.
14. Alcoholism must be an automatic disqualified for gun ownership.
15. Gun ownership must be legally defined as a privilege and not a right and can be revoked at any time.
16. Submission to a lie detector test.
17. A comprehensive 100 question form that must meet approval.
18. An extensive and aggressive government buy back program with a minimum budget of one billion dollars every year.
And that's just a start. That's just a few of the things that need to be done to get the gun pandemic under control. If we want to put an end to the pile of American cadavers climbing to the height of Mount Everest then we can start here and come up with more legislation in the future.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:
by the end of your list, you've gotten too intrusive for me. While I can't match Jeb!'s "stuff happens" cavalier attitude, I will agree that in a free society you can't proactively prevent all tragedies. And I've been tainted - I do want to live in a (relatively, at least) free society. And though I personally don't share it, I know many people who enjoy guns for some combination of rational and irrational reasons. Just because they're dangerous isn't good enough reason for me to take them away. I've got dangerous interests of my own, and I have no sympathy for people who would try to eliminate the possibility of me enjoying them.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
I don't aspire to utopia, it's probably not good for us until we've become angelic. Our bodies don't function correctly if you remove the stimula that we evolved to handle.
In that sense the way we manage cars is a good analogy. Both devices are way too popular, there should be alternative solutions to the problems they purport to solve. Ideally they should both only be in the hands of enthusiasts who attempt to minimize their negative impacts on the rest of us. I'm not sure which device will be first to go....
Once again, I cite statistics ... this is from Forbes ...
Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
"A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...rimes-plummet/
if you are really worried about crime on our streets, then rest assured, we will soon be policed by the UN...
https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ag-lynch-announces-global-police-force-partnership-un
I never said that we should take people's guns away.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I sure hope they do a better job than they've done in Sudan. The places they serve don't seem to be noteworthy for their level ofQuote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
effective population control.... (sorry, I guess that phrase has been co-opted.) effective control of the populace.
If you read the Pew Research Center study, you would find that none of their interpretations of the reduction in crime and gun violence are attributed to gun sales. It's only the biased opinion piece in Forbes that cynically draws this conclusion. And then there is the absurd nut-job comment about the UN policing us at the end...
Whatever.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Forbes biased? ... how can anyone argue with this? ... gun sales way up, violent crime steadily declining ...
and before you try to discredit me with name calling and insults, you should do some research ... here, will the United States Department of Justice website do? ... this story is all over the internet ... lots of interpretations out there ... so with crime statistics actually declining in this country, why on earth would we need a global approach to law enforcement?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...united-nations
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
Ed, I assume you're not at all affiliated with any libertarian organization! Starting with point #9, your program sounds like an authoritarian response to a social and cultural issue. How about starting with a discussion that's not quite so presumptuous about who gets to own guns?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Who decides which "misdemeanors" disqualify one from owning a gun, when felons work on on Wall Street, for corporations, and abound in politics and the military? So, is a black man with a heroin possession conviction, yet now recovered from addiction and participating in society, not worthy of the same choices available to those who go to Wharton and make their living robbing others of their savings? Please explain how your arrive at your criteria for which crimes disqualify one from owning guns.
Submission to drug testing: does this include prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs (some of which have been implicated in behavioral effects), or just the ones that the government and corporate fascists think are too "liberating" in terms of being correlated with free-thinking individuals (e.g, THC, LSD, psilocybin, peyote)?
Nevertheless, many of your points seem reasonable. I just don't trust any governmental standards when the bottom line is to maintain the economic status quo of massive economic and social injustice that capitalism and its proxy government provide and enforce. I doubt that you expect any "independent panel" to have the blessings of the government for the purpose of deciding who gets to own guns, and the government, at all levels, has demonstrated its incompetence and biases in terms of legislating social behavior.
Failure to include the government and its corporate base in "gun control" is a losing proposition for the majority of humanity. I'll say it again -- gun control needs to start as a fundamental paradigm shift in social and cultural values, with personal weapon possession but a minor point in the overall magnitude of the changes needed. Until economic and social justice are available to every human being, any attempt to control human behavior by governmental decree or law (e.g., the TPP) is hypocritical and repressive.
Why would anyone trust a government with a track record of over 200 years of racism, violence, broken treaties, unilateral acts of military aggression, violations of international and constitutional law, torture, genocide, and economic terrorism to administer a fair system of any sort, let alone weapons ownership? If the government isn't going to enforce the provisions of your program, who will do so?
I'm fine with repealing the 2nd Amendment -- after all, the Bill of Rights is just a god-damned piece of paper! As are all the rest of government's decrees, regulations, and laws.
Peter,
I see that you're new here so welcome to waccoland ...
I am enjoying your posts, I really am ... and having just read about a $400 billion fighter jet that's been added to our military arsenal, I applaud your inclusion of all weaponry and all entities in this discussion ... but I must disagree strongly with your last statement here ... the Bill of Rights is not just another piece of paper ...
The Bill of Rights is the reason that this country was, at one time, so popular ... it's one of the reasons that everyone came here ... there was the belief that one could escape fascism here and it was a magnet for the rest of the world ... whether or not it was real, we all grew up believing that we were in a free country because of it ... we felt that we could obtain justice if it was violated ... we felt protected ... throw out the Bill of Rights and you have what we have now ... a police state that spies on it's own citizens and subjects them to all kinds of horrors without any due process ... is that what you want?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sempervirens:
Whoa Whoa!! wow, i don't own a gun but with stuff like above, you make me want to own one...Now! Jeez, going from one extreme to another....no thanksQuote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
It seems that you're not even checking your own sources. The link to Forbes is from a contributor, Larry Bell, in which the magazine disavows any endorsement of his opinion. Here is one of his books: "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax"
So he's a global warning denier - how nice!
The US is interested in the UN only when it can be used as a shield to mask our military adventures. To think that our government would ever cede any control to the UN is ludicrous. We don't even recognize the International Criminal Court.
As far as crime in the US, check out this graph and tell me we don't have a problem in relation to other western counties:
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-v...-rates-2014-11
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
sure, these points can be addressed without any pejorative descriptions of them. Forbes of course has an editorial bias - everyone does - but it's not too pronounced in their objective reporting. However, the link provided wasn't to a report - it was to a guest columnist writing an opinion piece. That isn't an inference, it's the headline.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Sure crime declining; the baby-boom is greying. Has nothing to do with gun prevalence. There are lots of other social and demographic changes that have happened since the 60's and 70's. You have a much harder time scoring smack in Times Square than you do getting a kid's toy from Frozen. That's not because of the change in weaponry.
And why would you resist a global approach to policing? Globalization works in both the legal and illegal economies. There are more civilized nations than ours out there with good ideas on how to protect the public, and sharing information can indeed be useful. As Snowden points out, it's a cat that's out of the bag anyway, so better to not pretend it isn't happening and instead make sure it's used appropriately. The sci-fi image of a global uber-Gestapo isn't what's happening. The UN has enough trouble organizing agricultural programs much less a unified crowd-control system across the globe.
Arthunter, I guess you missed my poke at a former American president, and all neocons and neolibs and their legions who are content to let constitutional and civil liberties wither away while our government carries out crimes against humanity with impunity. Do you not recall that G. W. Bush referred to the U. S. Constitution as just a "piece of paper"? Sorry if you missed that classic moment in American leadership!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Thanks for the criticism, as it pushes me to investigate further ...
The whole "climate issue" has been discussed to death previously and it has no place in this discussion, except perhaps to discredit a writer who doesn't share your particular point of view ... if we wish to argue about that issue we should start another thread ...
I'm happy to hear that you still have faith in our government after all that has transpired in this country ... I hope that you're right ....
Yes, I have no doubt that homicide rates are high in this country but is that due to gun ownership? ... that's what I'm trying to determine here ... Crime Prevention Research Center is a very good site with lots of statistics and graphs about the whole subject of gun ownership and crime ...
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/mu...fter-gun-bans/
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
Mea culpa: Upon further review of the "piece of paper quote" attributed to G.W. Bush, I have found no substantiated source for the quote. The original source, Doug Thompson with Capital Hill Blue, has been discredited for its lack of demonstrable proof that Bush stated the words attributed to him. https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bu...ece-of-paper/#
Most people - about all of us -- will never know what has been spoken during closed-doors policy meetings among elected officials, staff members, et al. Yet, in this case, the actions have been more than amply demonstrable, even if the myths aren't. Bush, Obama, Clinton, and other presidents have long since treated words in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as less worthy than the parchment on which they were printed. Those words, also known as "laws," are routinely ignored, qualified, and re-interpreted by government "officials."
Despite all claims to the contrary, the "rule of law" is subject to exception in the name of "national security," the "war on terrorism," the "war on drugs," other fabricated "wars," and the full litany of crimes perpetrated against people and the environment for the sake of American military, corporate, political, and economic hegemony. In a purported "nation of laws," the actions of government and its proxies belie that description every moment.
Bush-appointed Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, defied the writ of habeas corpus in public testimony https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Gonzales-says-the-Constitution-doesn-t-guarantee-2622014.php
and has also described international treaties as "obsolete" https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/ccr-opposes-nomination-alberto-gonzales
Obama has taken the hand-off from Gonzales and run with it. And just like the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, et al., they should all be running to prison for destroying the "rule of law." I suppose it doesn't matter much what a politician or "official" says when the actions tell us all we need to know.
SUN OCT 11, 2015 AT 02:00 PM PDT
Nobody is going to take your precious guns!
https://images.dailykos.com/images/1...png?1434674725
attribution: Creative Commons via Wiki
The United Guns of America
After every mass shooting, we hear the same cries from the most fervent gun rights supporters. Thisshooting will be the one that Obama and the "libs" will use to take away their guns. There is no remorse or sympathy for the victims' families. There is, however, blame and contempt toward the victims for not carrying a firearm, and an unfounded fear that the government is going to take their guns.
These are the same people who claim that government cannot do anything right. Let that sink in for a minute: The government that is so incompetent that it cannot be trusted to provide even the most basic services is somehow going to come and take away their guns. The sheer ridiculousness of this argument is, well, insane.
As of 2007, there were an estimated 270 millionprivately owned firearms in this country. That number is most likely low, as there is no way to know for sure just how many guns there really are. There is no database listing each gun owner and the number of guns they own. There is no list of registered gun owners and in some states like Wisconsin, the names of citizens who have concealed carry licenses cannot be disclosed.
The [Wisconsin] Department [of Justice] maintains a database of concealed carry license holders but access to it is strictly limited. Even law enforcement officers could not routinely check, say, whether a person they are stopping in connection with a violent crime has a license to carry.
After President Obama's second inaugural address, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre stated:
[President Obama] wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry. There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners—to tax them or take them.
That is the head of the NRA stoking the fears of its members. Read on to see what President Obama's plan, proposed in January 2013, actually included.
- Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.
- Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.
- Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.
- Provides additional tools to law enforcement. The plan proposes a crackdown on gun trafficking by asking Congress to pass legislation that closes “loopholes” in gun trafficking laws and establishes strict penalties for “straw purchasers” who pass a background check and then pass guns on to prohibited people.
- Urges Congress to pass the administration’s $4 billion proposal to keep 15,000 state and local police officers on the street to help deter gun crime.
- Maximizes efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. The president calls upon the attorney general to work with U.S. attorneys across the country to determine gaps occurring in this area and where supplemental resources are appropriate.
- Provides training for “active shooter” situations to 14,000 law enforcement, first responders and school officials.
- Directs the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a statement to health care providers that they are not prohibited by federal law from reporting threats of violence to the proper authorities.
- Launches a national gun safety campaign to encourage responsible gun ownership and authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to examine issues relating to gun safety locks.
- Helps schools invest in safety. The president’s plan calls for more school resource officers and counselors in all schools through the Community Oriented Policing Services hiring program. The plan also calls for the federal government to assist schools in developing emergency management plans.
- Improves mental health awareness through enhanced teacher training and referrals for treatment. The plan calls for the training of 5,000 additional mental health professionals nationwide. The plan also calls for coverage of mental health treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.
A national gun registry is nowhere in that plan.
However, there is something a registry would be good for other than confiscation or taxation: When somecareless gun ownergood guy with a gun has one or all of his guns stolen—and the police need to track where the weapons came from if they're used in a crime.
It isn't just mass shootings that are a problem. With such easy access to firearms—seriously, it is easier to buy a gun than it is to purchase Sudafed—it is no wonder we have become numb to reports of gun crime. As of October 8, there have been 10,172 gun-related deaths in the United States so far in 2015, and 20,679 injuries. In comparison, between 2001 and 2014 there were a total of 6,845 U.S. service members killed in action over 13 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In just a little more than nine months, we have already had more deaths by firearm this year alone than we had in 13 years of war.
We must find the will to do something to stop this. There's not one simple solution to gun violence in the United States. But all Congress members, all gun owners who are against any gun control, and all NRA leaders have blood on their hands due to their inaction. They are also guilty of stoking unsubstantiated fears about something that will never happen: No one is coming to take your fucking guns.
ORIGINALLY POSTED TO DAILY KOS ON SUN OCT 11, 2015 AT 02:00 PM PDT.
ALSO REPUBLISHED BY SHUT DOWN THE NRA, FIREARMS LAW AND POLICY, AND BADGER STATE PROGRESSIVE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yClcMZjkRE
Guns Do Kill People. A Lot.
The Young Turks
Published on Oct 12, 2015
One of the reasons we’re upset about guns in this country is all of the mass shootings. Another reason we’re concerned is because, on a personal level, your gun is statistically more likely to kill you or your loved ones than bad guys trying to hurt you. Cenk Uygur, host of the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"A Texas man shot and killed his wife after mistaking her for an intruder.
The man said he saw a light and someone standing at a distance, so he fired one blast from the shotgun.
That’s when he realized he had shot his wife, 48-year-old Debora Kelly.
Police tried to resuscitate her when they arrived, but she was pronounced dead at the scene from a gunshot wound to her chest.”*
Read more here: https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/texa...