Time to stop exploiting children killed in Connecticut

[MAG]

It is so overdue to stop exploiting the 20 children and 7 adults killed in Newtown, Connecticut
They should not be exploited for political agendas.

Circumstances should be researched for causes. The gun was incidental in that the young man had issues. And if you don’t look for reasons, you are not likely to find them or to recognize them.

If he didn’t have a gun, the killings would not have happened that way- by gunshots nor (maybe) on that day. He may (or not) have used a bomb, noxious gas, a machete or ..... There could have been more mayhem. OR maybe if any little thing or trigger had been different, he would have just killed his mother and himself... or just himself.. or he would have had whatever help he needed to be OK.

THE POINT IS TO ANALYSE THE SITUATION to see why it happened and when and if and how it could have been prevented.
It has been reported that he was extremely smart, that he had asperger's, that he was stressed to the point of cutting his own body. I did not hear if he was on medication (nor pos side effects of meds.)
I did not hear why his mother took him out of school. It sounded like his mother cared and tried to help him.
I don’t know if reports were accurate.

Temple Grandin has been uniquely enlightening about autism and asperger. She is probably THE EXPERT, having lived it and being fortunate that her mother did not follow “conventional wisdom of the time” in treating and did not have low expectations. She explains how sound and light can affect individuals. How imaging can be different. How some skills can heightened.

You can fixate on the guns his mother had and he used for target shooting at a range or pull other agenda based causes out of a hat.
was he circumcised or not
did he ever have any pets.
I don’t know if he had mercury fillings
Some people may consider these significant.
There a lot we don’t know and so much that we just don’t understand.
Time for critical thinking, not knee jerk reacting or exploiting.

Question for both gun agendas. Might stun guns be a reasonable intervention requiring less skill and less chance of seriously harming a non-target while providing a means of protection in schools?

[Valley Oak]

We need gun control.

You have a hidden agenda to keep guns freely available to any lunatic. Shame on you!

It is so overdue to stop exploiting the 20 children and 7 adults killed in Newtown, Connecticut
They should not be exploited for political agendas.

[handy]

We need gun control.

We have gun control. It doesn't work.

You have a hidden agenda to keep guns freely available to any lunatic. Shame on you!

This coming from someone who proudly voted for a lunatic who claims the right to murder anyone, anywhere, anytime, with drone strikes. Hypocrite!

[Valley Oak]

It is so overdue...

[handy]

Well, your fascination with snuff films is ...interesting...

But your claimed capacity to define for others what their needs, desires and rights might be seems to be a superiority complex that borders on insane.

While I still hold that you have the right to own a firearm, I certainly wouldn't TRUST you with one.

Best regards,

[Valley Oak]

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.

[MAG]

Ed, did you not read my entire post? Your response was not relevant. You did not discuss any points. "Why" does matter. It was one little boy and one little girl and another and another and another until 20 were dead. I cannot stop you from exploiting those children. It was an aberration. Why you have no interest in motive or cause is beyond me.

I am curious - Aren't the children who have been (and will be) killed or injured, shot by drive-bys and gangs members in Oakland and Richmond, significant to you? Is it because those shooters repeatedly drive out to kill and maim? Not one bazaar incident but a way of life? Is it that their guns are not registered or acquired legally? How do you propose to have the laws followed by gangs and felons robbing and shooting convenience store clerks? Perhaps it is a matter of education? You can meet with (or leaflet?) gang members and other criminals.
They don't buy arms from legitimate dealers and pass a background test and register the guns. They don't follow rules about transporting and not using them when committing a crime.
Good luck with having your proposed gun control laws affect gangs and other criminals.

Would you take gun control a step further. How about hand control? Everyone must turn in their hands? It would really cut down on violence if people did not have hands? Think of the people who would not have been injured by gun or arrow or rocks, or knife or brass knuckles, or heavy object or strangled or ....
Personally, I believe we should all have hands and use them responsibly.

Ed, you did not even give your opinion on stun guns. Would you object to there being stun guns available for trained school personnel to use for protection?

Oh, and I have little confidence in your psychic abilities. Reading people's thoughts (my "hidden agenda"?) is not your forte.

And might as well respond to your old concern that Katie Couric was a shill for the GOP and donations for her cancer cause was a sham. Katie Couric's husband died of colon cancer. It became her cause. She was a TV host and interviewer on Today, a morning program. She even had a colonoscopy on air to increase awareness through screenings and to encourage others to have colonoscopys. It was 11 yrs ago. You could have web searched, still can and see video.

You know Ed, I think we talk different languages. I don't mind that you have different views. You really should be open to more critical thinking and fact seeking. You know what they say about history.
And quit being so darn silly -- arms for lunatics?
Of course it may be as Clinton said - It depends on what the meaning of is is (true lawyer speak)
Thinking critically,I cannot give specific meaning to your words.

We need gun control.

You have a hidden agenda to keep guns freely available to any lunatic. Shame on you!

[Shandi]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Guns don't kill. People with cell phones do!" There really are a lot of ways that we, who would never think to use a gun, use cell phones so unconsciously while driving. I made a commitment last year, never to talk on my cell phone while driving, even with a blue tooth device. Nothing is that important that can't wait, and spare someone's life that I might take unintentionally. Like that little girl who was killed by a texting young adult in Rohnert Park, while crossing the street with her mom. So many lives affected by this tragedy.

This is one step we can all take, to prevent death and injury by "cell phones".

Gun control won't stop criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns to kill and maim. As mentioned, we do have a gun control policy of sorts. Yet, even in homes where guns are registered, accidental deaths happen, many times to young children.

I personally know mentally ill people who have registered guns in their homes, but this will not prevent them from using them to kill themselves or someone else, once they've gone over the edge of their fragile reasoning ability, from built up stress.

We can't convince each other when we're on opposite positions about anything, and it doesn't do much good to have a "word war" along with "name calling" on a bulletin board for a "conscious" community. Our beliefs are not usually altered by someone with different beliefs.

Critical thinking is nearly impossible when we're so passionate about our beliefs. I haven't even met many people in my lifetime that I'd consider "critical thinkers". Who of us can truly and objectively contribute to this highly disputed topic? I'd like to see a "cease fire" on this controversy.

Ed, did you not read my entire post? Your response was not relevant. You did not discuss any points. "Why" does matter. ....

[Hotspring 44]

We need gun control...

Edward, until now I have stayed out of this heated topic of "gun control" here and other threads on waccobb... ...I have read generalized statements but nothing specific enough for me to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff to distinguish emotional responses to the tragedy in CT from a realistic and achievable set of laws that would leave the 2nd amendment intact and/or end up with the reconstitution of the draft in some way... ...I am curious; specifically, what do you think should be implemented for "gun control" laws here in the US without gutting the 2nd amendment or ending up with some referendum that would in some way, have the counter-intuitive effect that would reinstate the draft (conscription) so as to in a limited way, re-access the 2nd amendment to what some believe to be limited to (the) "able bodied" men (men as far as the conscription, draft since Colonial times was put into law) to be the ones ("people") that have that aforementioned "right" to keep and bear arms at home to form(?)... in other words... ..."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."... ...(?)

It seems to me that, in this debate, things can, have, and will be rather convoluted at times so I wonder after the media circus in CT ends, what the Supreme Court Justices would say if the new inevitable legislation goes too far?

It seems to me that the term "the people" in regards to the 2nd amendment is interpreted differently by those that in essence, want all guns banned from the general public ("the people") and those that possess guns and some varying differences between those opposing views...
...furthermore, the meaning of the term "the people" in politics and democracy by some of those that seem to forever want to ban all or at least many presently existing guns, apparently has a vastly different meaning, I can't explain why it is that way but it seems to me that there is a misjudgement somewhere in the synapses somewhere between the two different interpretations of "the people" depending what topic is involved; either, democracy or guns.

I don't think that we should throw the meaning of "we the people" to the wind based on horrible tragity situations.
I think some powerful "gun control" advocates were laying in-wait, so to speak, for such an event to occur just so they can push their agenda hard into our faces using our predictable emotions and the media frenzy as a tool to meet their agenda's end.

[Hotspring 44]

It is so overdue to stop exploiting the 20 children and 7 adults killed in Newtown, Connecticut
They should not be exploited for political agendas...

I agree.

[MAG]

Shandi, Most use some critical thinking in every day life.
As to what I mean by critical thinking :
there is a book called Freakonomics written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. Easy read or audio tape listen. Entertaining and eye opening. These guys looked objectively - with no expectations regarding some daily wonderings. ex Why do drug dealers live with their moms?; The question of cheating. The authors are not political - just curious. The book is not political and sure had some 'oh's' for me. I had opinions based on what I'd frequently heard or thought logical. Just because we hear something repeated a lot doesn't make it the truth. I was disappointed by some of the discoveries but thats life.

I took a paralegal course and that was one of the best things I've done. Prior, I did not understand the difference between, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Leave out any and deceit is possible. (ads to sell things, courses, speeches, etc). Asking the right questions, getting very specific, pursuing, and listening and observe, being open to new discoveries and possibilities is crucial. Too often, it is what is not said in conversation, in a speech or pitch that is most important.
I often chose wrongly when buying or hiring because part of the pitch had a fact I knew so assumed the rest was true. (or they said exactly what I wanted to hear) As you say, if passion is involved it can be more difficult.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Guns don't kill. People with cell phones do!" There really are a lot of ways that we, who would never think to use a gun, use cell phones so unconsciously while driving. I made a commitment last year, never to talk on my cell phone while driving, even with a blue tooth device. Nothing is that important that can't wait, and spare someone's life that I might take unintentionally. Like that little girl who was killed by a texting young adult in Rohnert Park, while crossing the street with her mom. So many lives affected by this tragedy.

This is one step we can all take, to prevent death and injury by "cell phones".

Gun control won't stop criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns to kill and maim. As mentioned, we do have a gun control policy of sorts. Yet, even in homes where guns are registered, accidental deaths happen, many times to young children.

I personally know mentally ill people who have registered guns in their homes, but this will not prevent them from using them to kill themselves or someone else, once they've gone over the edge of their fragile reasoning ability, from built up stress.

We can't convince each other when we're on opposite positions about anything, and it doesn't do much good to have a "word war" along with "name calling" on a bulletin board for a "conscious" community. Our beliefs are not usually altered by someone with different beliefs.

Critical thinking is nearly impossible when we're so passionate about our beliefs. I haven't even met many people in my lifetime that I'd consider "critical thinkers". Who of us can truly and objectively contribute to this highly disputed topic? I'd like to see a "cease fire" on this controversy.

[Valley Oak]

Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment protects young people from being drafted into the Armed Forces like they were in Vietnam?

Edward

Edward, until now I have stayed out of this heated topic of "gun control" here and other threads on waccobb... ...I have read generalized statements but nothing specific enough for me to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff to distinguish emotional responses to the tragedy in CT from a realistic and achievable set of laws that would leave the 2nd amendment intact and/or end up with the reconstitution of the draft in some way... ...I am curious; specifically, what do you think should be implemented for "gun control" laws here in the US without gutting the 2nd amendment or ending up with some referendum that would in some way, have the counter-intuitive effect that would reinstate the draft (conscription) so as to in a limited way, re-access the 2nd amendment to what some believe to be limited to (the) "able bodied" men (men as far as the conscription, draft since Colonial times was put into law) to be the ones ("people") that have that aforementioned "right" to keep and bear arms at home to form(?)... in other words... ..."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."... ...(?)

It seems to me that, in this debate, things can, have, and will be rather convoluted at times so I wonder after the media circus in CT ends, what the Supreme Court Justices would say if the new inevitable legislation goes too far?

It seems to me that the term "the people" in regards to the 2nd amendment is interpreted differently by those that in essence, want all guns banned from the general public ("the people") and those that possess guns and some varying differences between those opposing views...
...furthermore, the meaning of the term "the people" in politics and democracy by some of those that seem to forever want to ban all or at least many presently existing guns, apparently has a vastly different meaning, I can't explain why it is that way but it seems to me that there is a misjudgement somewhere in the synapses somewhere between the two different interpretations of "the people" depending what topic is involved; either, democracy or guns.

I don't think that we should throw the meaning of "we the people" to the wind based on horrible tragity situations.
I think some powerful "gun control" advocates were laying in-wait, so to speak, for such an event to occur just so they can push their agenda hard into our faces using our predictable emotions and the media frenzy as a tool to meet their agenda's end.

[Valley Oak]

For example, I would outlaw assault rifles, all of them. A Bushmaster was used in Connecticut and at the theatre in Colorodo. This also includes the Uzi, the AK 47, etc, etc, etc.

Edward, until now I have stayed out of this heated topic of "gun control" here and other threads on waccobb... ...I have read generalized statements but nothing specific enough for me to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff to distinguish emotional responses to the tragedy in CT from a realistic and achievable set of laws that would leave the 2nd amendment intact and/or end up with the reconstitution of the draft in some way... ...I am curious; specifically, what do you think should be implemented for "gun control" laws here in the US without gutting the 2nd amendment or ending up with some referendum that would in some way, have the counter-intuitive effect that would reinstate the draft (conscription) so as to in a limited way, re-access the 2nd amendment to what some believe to be limited to (the) "able bodied" men (men as far as the conscription, draft since Colonial times was put into law) to be the ones ("people") that have that aforementioned "right" to keep and bear arms at home to form(?)... in other words... ..."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."... ...(?)

It seems to me that, in this debate, things can, have, and will be rather convoluted at times so I wonder after the media circus in CT ends, what the Supreme Court Justices would say if the new inevitable legislation goes too far?

It seems to me that the term "the people" in regards to the 2nd amendment is interpreted differently by those that in essence, want all guns banned from the general public ("the people") and those that possess guns and some varying differences between those opposing views...
...furthermore, the meaning of the term "the people" in politics and democracy by some of those that seem to forever want to ban all or at least many presently existing guns, apparently has a vastly different meaning, I can't explain why it is that way but it seems to me that there is a misjudgement somewhere in the synapses somewhere between the two different interpretations of "the people" depending what topic is involved; either, democracy or guns.

I don't think that we should throw the meaning of "we the people" to the wind based on horrible tragity situations.
I think some powerful "gun control" advocates were laying in-wait, so to speak, for such an event to occur just so they can push their agenda hard into our faces using our predictable emotions and the media frenzy as a tool to meet their agenda's end.

[Hotspring 44]

Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment protects young people from being drafted into the Armed Forces like they were in Vietnam?

Edward

No.

[Hotspring 44]

For example, I would outlaw assault rifles, all of them. A Bushmaster was used in Connecticut and at the theatre in Colorodo. This also includes the Uzi, the AK 47, etc, etc, etc.

Edward, thanks for your answer.

[Valley Oak]

What do you think should be implemented for "gun control" laws?

Edward

Edward, thanks for your answer.

[Hotspring 44]

This quoted part of the post and most of the text preceding it strikes me as classic psychological projection and calumnious to boot.

If there is any basis for the “thought” about people “laying in-wait”...for such an event... (such as at Newtown??!), that basis is not presented. Pretty far out junk of a post even for aptly named Wacco.

/patchen/

1- I am not going to write a whole theses to back my opinion, I just don't have the energy for that.

2- There will always be some that won't like the way the constitutional meaning of the phrase (of) “the people” plays-out but either way it does it shouldn't have two different meanings particularly in constitutional law, that is where the stanch, so-called pro democracy, anti gun people have have a real conundrum on their hands in regards to the constitution and the Bill of Rights and how the the 2nd amendment is worded. I could delve into that deeper but I just don't have the energy for that right now.

3- "calumnious" you say?... ...I don't think so but as we all are, even if it is ever so slightly "calumnious" (so long as it fits within the waccobb posting guidelines), you are entitled to your opinion and to post them.

4- The links in the text I posted had actual historical facts that have real precedent regarding the draft and wording of the 2nd amendment.
Those facts are part of the way I was presenting my opinion.
I know I am not always concise to say the least but we can not justify changing the precedent meaning of "the people" based on tragic events, that is the gist of part of what I was saying in that post.

Furthermore, what I was trying to convey is; if gun laws are going to be changed (I believe they will be) those changes should not create a new precedent to circumvent the constitutional meaning of "the people"; whereas when it comes to the issue of high powered assault type weaponry, Drones, tanks, missiles, grenade launchers, Fighter jets, fully automatic military "guns" and ammunition and their semi-automatic (gun) counterparts etc, is where there needs to be some clarification when it concerns a "well organized militia". Texas has differing laws as does New York or California. Ultimately, each state has more or less jurisdiction concerning the national guard personnel than some on either side of the issue may think. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress, Paragraph 16

There is the stated reasoning in preamble to the Bill of Rights and for the amendments of the constitution (for) reasons as stated by the authors:

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription The Preamble to The Bill of Rights Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.... ...Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So there you have it, some evidence of the conundrum between the meaning of "the people" and "A well regulated Militia" and what some gun control advocates clamor as foul when the so-called "gun rights" advocates cite the second amendment in their "pro-gun" arguments.

...it strikes me as classic psychological projection and calumnious to boot.

I was not out to 'strike', slander nor defame anyone that is one reason I did not say anyone's name in particular but rather state what is obvious to me in politics and media that have an agenda.

Even if you and others don't think there are anti-gun legislators just itching to change the gun laws who would jump on any opportunity to jam their pet gun control wishes into law using a fresh and horrible tragity or anything else (the anything else would have been a far preferable circumstance), you are not being very observant, IMHO.

[Hotspring 44]

Edward, I posted my answer to your question on another thread (Gun Control Now!) here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...160#post161160

What do you think should be implemented for "gun control" laws?

Edward

[Valley Oak]

I will also answer you in the other thread. But the solution to the problem of mass murder like in Connecticut, Columbine, and too many similar situations is gun control.

Edward, I posted my answer to your question on another thread (Gun Control Now!) here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...160#post161160