 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 08:49 PM Come on down here and do it, gn-ze... I'll go to work for ya'... I'll carry your briefcase... Fetch yer coffee... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:12 PM Bombs don't kill people either. Not on their own - they just lie their on their own doing no harm to anyone. The same goes for canisters of poison gas, or ampoules of anthrax. Totally harmless unless some human being comes into the picture... And 'arms', I would suggest includes all those things. Isn't it great that Americans have the right to stock up on stuff like that, and any laws to stop them doing so would be unconstitutional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:17 PM Only unconstitutional in the eyes of coward justices who, like everyone else, have been bullied by the NRA and their redneck & rabid foot soldiers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:28 PM "Witness the fact that all the Founding Fathers, including the very people who wrote the Constitution, owned guns." Perhaps the fault lies with these founding fathers. Not to throw in a red herring but did not many of them own slaves as well? It is not hard to comprehend how guns could be used to control slaves! Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 49% owned slaves. The slave owners were: Richard Bassett (DE) Jacob Broom (DE) John Dickinson (DE) George Read (DE) William Houstoun (GA) William Few (GA) William Samuel Johnson (CT) Daniel Carroll (MD) Luther Martin (MD) John Francis Mercer (MD) Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD) William Livingston (NJ) William Blount (NC) William Richardson Davie (NC) Alexander Martin (NC) Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC) Pierce Butler (SC) Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC) Charles Pinckney (SC) John Rutledge (SC) John Blair (VA) James Madison (VA) George Mason (VA) Edmund Randolph (VA) George Washington (VA) George Wythe (VA) Robert Morris (PA) There are borderline cases among the above. Robert Morris did not personally own slaves but did own a slave ship and invested in plantations using slaves. I've listed him as a slave owner since he was a direct participant in slavery and the slave trade. Some slave owners emancipated their slaves (Richard Bassett and John Dickinson). Other slave owners opposed slavery and supported abolition (Jacob Broom and William Samuel Johnson). Other slave owners opposed the slave trade if not slavery itself. Of the 26 slaveowners, 19 owned multiple slaves and relied on slave labor for their livelihood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Jeri Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:33 PM Illegal attempt at cross-topic trolling. Sandy is fined 5 posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:40 PM Perfectly valid historical parallel, demonstrating another way in which the Constitution was a pretty flawed document, which badly needed a good few adjustments to be fit for purpose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:41 PM Actually, there is relevance to what Sandy has posted and that is... ...historical context... Let's keep in mind that handguns, the weapon of choice by today's murderers, were used only for dueling... Rifles fired single shots and then had to be reloaded which was a time consuming process... This was the Founding Father's world... Not AK-47s in the hands of children... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:52 PM You nailed it Bobert. I can't even picture an automatic flint lock. Judges live in fear that one of their rulings will be overturned and that would prevent them from climbing that success ladder to a higher court. To hell with justice; they are no better than any other politician. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bill D Date: 15 Dec 12 - 09:55 PM From: pdq - PM Date: 15 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM Yes, pdq... I know what the courts have decided. You evade my point that **courts** are made up of people, and often people with agendas or prejudices. "prefatory clause" be damned! It is STILL not a clear statement...except possibly when viewed in the 1790s context! So... several judges voted on a linguistic interpretation... that is binding. That doesn't make the reality any easier to reconcile. Some things just don't make sense when viewed objectively. (Imagine, with all the tests available, trying to get tobacco approved by the FDA today! MONEY and addicted people make it VERY slowly being removed. And many dead people from lung cancer & emphysema! Maybe enough dead kids will eat at the acceptance of those AR-15s...hmmm?) The last defense when logic fails is to quote statistics and laws....got any more, pdq? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:05 PM As pdq says, we don't need to amend the second amendment. Take another look at it:
Seems to me that's good reason for the courts to ignore the second amendment altogether. Thanks, pdq. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:11 PM Yup, the 2nd amendment is obsolete... I mean, what if the Founding Fathers have put in an amendment endorsing slavery??? It'd be gone by now... Thomas Jefferson warned us that we'd have to mess with their starting point constitution... Guess the NRA didn't get the memo... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: pdq Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:26 PM This is the last time I am going to point this out, but "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is an introduction to the statement that has meaning, that being "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That was true 230 years ago and was reaffirmed in 2008 by our Supreme Court. If that bothers people, they should look up ways to ammend the Constitution and get started. Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: gnu Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:28 PM Welll... I ain't goin anywhere except to bed, Bobert. And, I cannot come dow there an get yer job dunn, even if you had any decent tea (coffee? yeccchhh!). A HUNDRED times again... shit or get off the poSt the lot a yas. Ya wanna get guns off "the street", do it. If youse who wanna ween here spend yer time weenin here don't do it, ya should thank yer lucky stars that yer able ta have guns and yer fellow citizens do have guns on accounta I read in the newspaper every day lately about some government bombin it's own citizens. Ain't gonna happen in the good ol USA... IS IT? There's a tad a good old boy logic ya can't refute. Read a thousand years a yer history and tell me the rich don't subjugate the poor... with the barrel of a gun. Flower power sucks compared to gun powder. Good gun laws are good but bad gun laws are bad. Figure it out, grow a pair and FORCE your governments to do the right thing and enact good gun laws. Use that thing you type twaddle on for better use. The keyboard is mightier than the gun, to coin a phrase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: olddude Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:35 PM I also have the greatest respect for my friends that disagree with my position. You are not wrong either, as both approaches have not seemed to work as this stuff just continues I can only hope it stops. Bill is a very good and very smart person, so is bobster and the others that disagree with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Jeri Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:37 PM Sorry, it really made no sense to me what the two things had in common. You pretty much had to have guns to keep slaves, though. Well, except American Indians had some slaves (more like indentured servants won in wars, I gather), but they kept them from running away somehow. Anyway... The constitution was written after the US War with Britain, which was won by a militia including a bunch of regular guys with guns. That's the frame of reference. So I'm sorry I jumped on you, Sandy. It just didn't seem logical. Lots of thing don't, these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST,999 Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:46 PM "Oh come on Bruce. How many deer, moose, or rabbit did you shoot with a Sig Sauer 9mm, or a Glock, or an AR 15?" None, Don, but neither is that what I said. I wrote that in response to another poster. The only rifles (never owned a pistol) I ever used were a 22, 303 (British), 308, 30-30 and 30.06. I have no use for handguns or assault rifles. (And I once used an FN that fired 7.62 ammunition, the then NATO weapon from Fabrique Nationale, but it belonged to the Canadian government. The sole purpose of that was killing people, which I never did.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: mg Date: 15 Dec 12 - 10:55 PM I have no enchantment with guns. I have no desire to own one. It does not make me feel like more of a man as that is the least of my worries. I wish I had been a nurse or secretary in that school, been properly trained, had access to locked guns, and had taken out the shooter, possibly losing my own life. Perhaps only women should own guns..seems most problems are caused by young men. And Old Guy I appreciate your offer to protect us and especially the young. It is too dangerous a world, even the seemingly luckiest, most prosperous parts of it, to give up our maybe not first..but one of our more immediate lines of defense. Create all sorts of obstacles to weed out the nuts..perhaps put an age limit..test, retest, give drug tests, etc...but the day will come..has come when we need someone with a gun, one of the good gals, to take out someone else misusing them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 15 Dec 12 - 11:00 PM Jeri, No offense taken. I think McGrath and Bobert and Kendall caught my intended point. It is of course about context. As well as the militia point, the second ammendment describes flintlocks and even the ammunition that went with the guns. It is the folly of fools to think that it applies to todays assault weapons, anymore than to think that slavery was acceptable either then or now! It is indeed unfortunate that the fools that perpetuated the folly were members of the US Supreme Court! The solution can only be with a demand from the good citizens of the USA to make changes and to tell politicians, judges, founding fathers, and the NRA to "Fuck Off"! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST,Backwoodsman sans Cookie Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:24 AM I'd hate to live in fear the way our US friends seem to do. I've lived on this Earth for 65 years mg, but I've never needed 'someone with a gun......to take out someone else misusing them', and the reason is perfectly simple - hardly anyone has a gun here. In 65 years I've never seem a gun in private hands, except of course shotguns owned by farmers and wildfowling aficionados. So the possibility of any of us being faced with one of oldude's 'mad dog killers' waving his Glock in our faces is virtually zero, close enough to zero as to be not worth getting our panties bunched over. Kendall's oft-repeated mantra - that guns don't kill people, people kill people - is right, up to a point, that point being that people are considerably less likely to kill people if they can't do it from a distance with a gun. The type of killer who shoots a classroomful of kids isn't a hero, he's not brave, he's a coward who kills at distance so that his victims have no chance to fight back. Take his gun away and he's impotent. There's very little chance that Americans, brainwashed from birth with their 2nd Amendment, are likely to understand or accept the UK view that people are safer when guns are outlawed, so there's no point friends bashing friends over the head with opposing opinions on that score, but I know where I'd rather live, and it's far more comfortable without guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:51 AM Glad I live in AUSTRALIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:54 AM A pity that the Second Amendment didn't state in its entirety: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It does seem to me that if that is what they meant that is what they would have said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:13 AM Harry knew so very much about the Human Mind. Long before others did, Harry knew. He saw inside. He felt the pain. He understood entirely. "It is an early Monday morning. The sun is becoming bright on the land. No one is watching as he comes a-walking. Two bulky suitcases hang from his hands. He heads towards the tower that stands in the campus. He goes through the door, he starts up the stairs. The sound of his footsteps, the sound of his breathing, The sound of the silence when no one was there. I didn't really know him. He was kind of strange. Always sort of sat there. He never seemed to change. He reached the catwalk. He put down his burden. The four sided clock began to chime. Seven AM, the day is beginning. So much to do and so little time. He looks at the city where no one had known him. He looks at the sky where no one looks down. He looks at his life and what it has shown him. He looks for his shadow it cannot be found. He was such a moody child, very hard to touch. Even as a baby he never smiled too much. No, no. No, no. You bug me, she said. You're ugly, she said. Please hug me, I said. But she just sat there With the same flat stare That she saves for me alone When I'm home. When I'm home. Take me home. He laid out the rifles, he loaded the shotgun, He stacked up the cartridges along the wall. He knew he would need them for his conversation. If it went as he planned, then he might use them all. He said Listen you people I've got a question You won't pay attention but I'll ask anyhow. I found a way that will get me an answer. Been waiting to ask you 'til now. Right now! Am I? I am a lover who's never been kissed. Am I? I am a fighter who's not made a fist. Am I? If I'm alive then there's so much I've missed. How do I know I exist? Are you listening to me? Are you listening to me? Am I? The first words he spoke took the town by surprise. One got Mrs. Gibbons above her right eye. It blew her through the window wedged her against the door. Reality poured from her face, staining the floor. He was kind of creepy, Sort of a dunce. I met him at the corner bar. I only dated the poor boy once, That's all. Just once, that was all. Bill Whedon was questioned as he stepped from his car. Tom Scott ran across the street but he never got that far. The police were there in minutes, they set up barricades. He spoke right on over them in a half-mile circle. In a dumb struck city his pointed questions were sprayed. He knocked over Danny Tyson as he ran towards the noise. Just about then the answers started coming. Sweet, sweet joy. Thudding in the clock face, whining off the walls, Reaching up to where he sat, their answering calls. Thirty-seven people got his message so far. Yes, he was reaching them right were they are. They set up an assault team. They asked for volunteers. They had to go and get him, that much was clear. And the word spread about him on the radios and TV's. In appropriately sober tone they asked "Who can it be?" He was a very dull boy, very taciturn. Not much of a joiner, he did not want to learn. No, no. No, no. They're coming to get me, they don't want to let me Stay in the bright light too long. It's getting on noon now, it's going to be soon now. But oh, what a wonderful sound! Mama, won't you nurse me? Rain me down the sweet milk of your kindness. Mama, it's getting worse for me. Won't you please make me warm and mindless? Mama, yes you have cursed me. I never will forgive you for your blindness. I hate you! The wires are all humming for me. And I can hear them coming for me. Soon they'll be here, but there's nothing to fear. Not any more though they've blasted the door. As the copter dropped the gas he shouted "Who cares?". They could hear him laughing as they started up the stairs. As they stormed out on the catwalk, blinking at the sun, With their final fusillade his answer had come. Am I? There is no way that you can hide me. Am I? Though you have put your fire inside me. Am I? You've given me my answer can't you see? I was! I am! and now I will be, I will be, I will be, I will be, I will be, I WILL BE!" Harry Chapin - Sniper - Youtube |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:28 AM There are some very sharp minds here, all have an opinion of what's wrong with America, none with a realistic solution. All you foreigners are tyrying to walk a mile in our shoes...they don't fit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: mg Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:29 AM they also use kilometers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:35 AM I have a friend who brags that he has an AK 47 that will fire 50 rounds in a matter of seconds. I ripped him a new one. He laughed. Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the USA, yet, one paranoid woman and her fucked up son got by them. My question is: How do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and whackos? I'm still waiting for that apology, Jack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: mg Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:36 AM Half of us will never understand what it is to be young and male, socially inept or socially rejected, especially by girls...we do not know how to educate these young men, we do not know how to integrate them socially..we do not know how to or when to medicate them if absolutely necessary. We do not know how to monitor their drug use. We do not know why so many are ADD and autistic and just plain odd. We need to humbly admit this and look for answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Will Fly Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:40 AM I tend to avoid adding to threads like this because, in general, they polarise pretty quickly, with the usual opposing people promoting the usual opposing arguments. However, two assertions in the argument strike me: 1. The Kennesaw, Georgia gun law ordinance - where every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition. Quote: "crime rate dropped by half after this law was passed". I simply wonder how having this ordinance in place in Newtown would have made any difference to what took place. A mentally disturbed person - probably intent on killing himself as well as others - wouldn't have given a damn. And who could possibly have stopped him in a classroom at the time? 2. I've heard it said, over and over again, that people must have the ability to own firearms because, if they don't, there will be no protection against all the criminals with their illegal guns. And you'll never get rid of all the illegal handguns. Interesting attitude, that last one. I was watching a documentary on the Space Shuttle last night, about it docking with a space station, the crew carrying out various tasks in space, and then it's re-entering Earth's air and landing safely and precisely. Amazing isn't it, that one of the most intelligent, technically excellent, clever, constructive and ingenious nations on earth can't even begin to make a start about thinking through the problem of getting rid of illegal guns. It just throws up its hands in horror and says, "Oh we can't possibly do that!" Think of all the logistics involved in creating and maintaining a huge army, navy and airforce, planning an invasion, countering terrorism, utilising complex intelligence networks, etc., etc. But you'll never get rid of illegal guns? Why not make a start? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:52 AM Apples and Oranges. There is one thing you can count on; no country will ever invade the USA as long as most of us are armed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: mg Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:55 AM A janitor. A nurse. A security person. Perhaps the principal, who died. Sometimes these things go quickly and sometimes there would be enough time if there was access, training etc. I remember doing research at a school that was in a gang infested part of town and finding out that the librarian had been a marine in Vietnam. I think that he would have been more than able and very quick to respond. I think that some school personnel are discretely armed where crime is fairly likely. They probably do not broadcast the fact. There emerge situations where one wishes that they might have been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Will Fly Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:06 AM There is one thing you can count on; no country will ever invade the USA as long as most of us are armed. Well... think of 9/11. Modern "invasions" - in the widest sense of the term, the violation of another country's space - happens in more ways than one these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Will Fly Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:08 AM I think that some school personnel are discretely armed where crime is fairly likely. But probably not in Newtown - "one of the safest places in America". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Charmion Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:49 AM If I remember correctly, the Second Amendment ties gun-ownership to the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." So, just spit-balling here, what if the firearms acquisition certificate (or whatever) came with compulsory enrollment in the National Guard? Like the Sedentary Militia of colonial times in Canada, these folks would be required to show up at the armoury on quarter days and go to the range to prove that they are maintaining their weapons-handling skills and safety drills. No physical fitness test or other professional military stuff; just range practice and counting noses. Anybody too frail and infirm to do that much probably should not be handling weapons at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:49 AM ""I have no use for handguns or assault rifles."" That was precisely the point of the question Bruce, since hand guns are what most US city dwellers have, and assault rifles are the weapon of choice for rural gun nuts, of which the USA has far too many. It is rarely the owner of hunting rifles or shotguns (the kind of weapon you would have used) who runs amuk and slaughters innocents. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:13 AM ""There is one thing you can count on; no country will ever invade the USA as long as most of us are armed."" With respect, Kendall, there isn't the slightest chance of any country invading the USA, whether the US citizenry are armed or not, so that comment is a complete irrelevance (as, I suspect, you are well aware). Also, the 2md amendment said nothing at all about invasion, rather being aimed at a putative tyrannical US government. You've had a string of those in recent years, culminating in the well deserved defeat of the Tea Party lunatics, due my friend to ballots, not bullets. Guns in private hands do not solve problems, they create them. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:31 AM kendall...it is now coming out that Adam had Aspergers. He was *not* 'Whacko' and your comments above are highly insensitive. As I stated in another thread, had Adam been helped more by people who *truly* understand Aspergers, than maybe, just maybe, what happened last week would *never* have happened. This is not just about Gun Laws and Guns, but it is about the refusal of the Human Species to face up to the fact that Autism is increasing very fast and that it is affecting society in many, many ways. Despite this happening, NO government is looking into the causes of Autism or pouring money in to those people/families who so desperately NEED help in so many ways. Here, John Elder Robison, former special effects designer for the rock band, KISS, (remember the smoking guitars?) explains not only his life as someone with Aspergers, but also his research into the TMS research now being done, which enabled him to feel, REALLY FEEL the emotions of another person, for the first time in his life..... Ingenious Minds - John Elder Robison - Part 1 Ingenious Minds - Part 2 John, on the TMS Research now being done The 'whackos' are the ones who refuse to acknowledge what is going on, thus helping to ensure that more and more of these tragedies will continue to happen, because of their stubborn refusal to see what is right before their eyes....And of course, the Corporate Medical Bastards who are ensuring that they don't 'find a cure' too fast, because they're making a fecking fortune from drugging MILLIONS of children up to the eyeballs with drugs which affect their brains each and every day..... ALL are tragic here...those innocent people who died and a young man who imploded bigtime after 20 years of struggling in a way so many may never even *want* to understand because their minds are happy to continue to call very sensitive, intelligent, creative and confused people as 'whackos'..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Stu Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:58 AM "Flower power sucks compared to gun powder" I don't agree Gnu. Gandhi freed an entire nation from brutal oppression using non-violent methods, and as Howard Jones pointed out above, after Dunblane and Hungerford here in the UK we tightened gun laws, made the possession of handguns illegal and we are all for the better. "The keyboard is mightier than the gun, to coin a phrase." Too right! "All you foreigners are tyrying to walk a mile in our shoes...they don't fit!" Would it be too much of an affront to your nation(man)hood to take some counsel from a concerned, caring neighbour? For some of us that visit the US frequently, have good friends there and love the place deeply this whole episode is very painful to watch; more so as the writing is writ so large on the wall but too many heads are in the sand. All this "guns don't kill people" bollocks that's being spouted is not doing your nation any favours. Guns are enablers, and they enable people to kill lots of other people quickly. If killing seven-year-olds doesn't disgust you enough to get rid of the guns, I can't think of what will and the future is too bleak to consider. Change the laws, dump the outdated, ludicrous second amendment, (or change it - you're a democracy) and sideline it's adherents to the lunatic fringe where they belong. Please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: kendall Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:13 AM Here we go again, commenting on the obvious. We all know that something should be done about guns in the wrong hands, the question is WHAT? Repeating the same old tired opinions is getting to be a pain in the ass. Lizzie, I have a grandson with Autism. He is not a whacko. I was referring to mentally unstable people.Criminally insane. "Only a Mothers certain belief that her child is exceptional keeps her from drowning them at birth." (Lazarus Long) No, I am not suggesting that the shooters Mother should have drowned him at birth, my point is Mothers tend to overlook serious flaws in their kids. Enough of this crap. Come up with some solutions or shut up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:28 AM Couple of things... First, what good does it do if Connecticut has stringent gun laws or not if you can go to a gun show in Virginia, back a U-Haul truck up, load it with AR-15s and AK-47s and a $5 book telling you how to covert them into automatic weapons used in war??? What is needed are some uniform federal laws... Second, as for the American people having their say in any gun control laws??? Ain't gonna happen... Because of re-redistricting, mostly by Republicans, we do not have a House or Representatives that represent the overall wished of the American people... Lastly, the NRA and it's mouth-pieces will sandbag with their usual bag of BIG LIEs and half-truths and this shooting, like all of them, will be not bring about meaningful changes... Or any changes, for that matter... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST,gilllymor Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:44 AM Speaking of crap: "There is one thing you can count on; no country will ever invade the USA as long as most of us are armed." That wasn't even true in 1812! It just sounds like another feeble homily to justify an antiquated notion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 16 Dec 12 - 09:44 AM The one big mistake that the Founding Fathers made IMHO, was to assume that future generations would have the plain common sense to react to changing times, by adjust the constitution to allow for those changes. They simply assumed that those who came later would have as much intelligence as they themselves. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 16 Dec 12 - 09:54 AM The 2nd Amendment will not be repealed or amended in our lifetimes. It takes a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress just to propose an amendment. That's difficult, but possible. But that proposed amendment must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That means 13 states voting "No" kills the proposal. I can name at leas 15 states in which the chances of a majority of voters voting "Yes" are about the same as your chances of winning the Powerball lottery without buying a ticket. As I said a number of posts back, the only way to solve the problem is by gradually eradicating the pervasive American myth of guns as agents of empowerment. The fact is that guns rarely empower, they usually dominate. If we don't want to be dominated by whatever fool happens to have a gun in his hand, we need to realize that fact, let go of the old myth, and take steps to free ourselves from that fool's ability to dominate us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:05 AM It seems clear that the NRA and other pro gun lobbyists believe that the occasional massacre of innocents (say two or three a year) is an acceptable price to pay for unrestricted gun ownership. The fact that politicians appear terrified to stand up to the pro gun lobby suggests that they believe this view is shared by a majority of voters. We would be foolish to believe that this hideous tragedy will lead to any changes in gun laws. Apart from anything else guns are big business, just listen to that money talking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST,999 Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:11 AM Thank you, Don T. I have been in two situations in my life when guns were pointed at me. In neither would my having a gun have helped in the least. In fact, had I reached for a weapon in either case I'd have been shot. (That's not bullshit; both instances really happened. And they happened in Montreal.) In fact. unless a third party had shot either of those guys just through the earlobe area of the head causing their gun hand to spasm open instead of squeeze shut, I'd have been shot anyway, so intervention wouldn't have helped. (That thing about the earlobe area is likely known to Kendall, Dan, gnu and Rap, but I doubt many others here would be aware of it.) The UKers here have no way to get their heads around the notion of people having guns. I understand that and wish it were the same here, but it isn't. Jaysus, Joseph and Mary does North America have guns. There have been really stupid laws passed in the US about people's right to bear arms, stand your ground being the stupidest, imo. It gives people an excuse to go look for trouble and get personally involved. I would suggest that anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime be sentenced to life in jail, no parole, period. I would also suggest that anyone killing someone in the commission of a crime be similarly sentenced. The people who have gone on rampages -- I notice folks getting into Asperger's stuff needlessly, because anyone who does that kind of shit IS mentally unbalanced to begin with and Asperger's has little to do with it -- certainly has issues. Also, I would like to see a gun law that holds purveyors of assault weapons and handguns to account. Believe me on one thing: if any of my family were involved in a tragedy of this nature, I would spend the rest of my life finding the person(s) ultimately responsible for making the weapons available to a killer, then I would do my best to dispatch him, her or them. I would do so without remorse and without mercy, and I do not much care who thinks what of that. I would like programs that glorify violence taken off television, and video games that do the same outlawed. We have become a violent society in North America. I think a good beginning would be to put major security checks in the way of anyone wanting to procure a weapon that is semiautomatic or automatic, and that goes for handguns, too. Then, people found to be in possession of said weapons without a license to have same given mandatory 20 years sentences, no parole. IMO, killers lose all their rights save one the moment they kill. They retain only the right to a trial. That's it, that's all. Sounds harsh? Compared to 20 dead 6 and 7 year olds, it sounds just about right to me. As a BTW, I think that even mentioning Asperger's in this case does a disservice to all people with mental difficulties and disabilities. The guy who dropped the A bomb on Hiroshima wasn't labelled in that manner. Nor are the various 'legal' killers around the world: SAS, JTF 2, SEALS, HRT, Delta, GSG 9, etc. IMO. And if you want to email me or message about this, do so. Most folks here know how to locate me. I've never made a secret of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Greg F. Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:40 AM Amen, Bruce. Well and nicely put. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Bill D Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:50 AM Well..once again I went to bed after pointing out the awkwardness inherent in the 2nd Amendment. Several have agreed and made the same point in different words. And in his usual clever manner, pdq responded by RE-quoting the amendment and saying this is "the last time he will do so"! As if that clarifies everything. Sadly, that method of debate IS what what the NRA and many gun fanciers fall back on, and as long as they have frightened legislators and Supreme Court judges in their pocket to nod wisely and say: "Yes, that's the way it is.", we will have more headlines. -------------------------------------------- about the crime: The school was LOCKED.. he broke a window and forced his way in. Even teachers having access to weapons somewhere would not have helped. Only an armed guard at the door could have possibly have stopped him. I'll bet a few schools in rich areas WILL hire armed guards. And some malls... and a few theaters... How many libraries, swimming pools, sports stadiums, folk festivals, public parks..... well, you get the idea... will pretend that some sort of 'guard' will prevent similar stories? A deranged person with the right weapons will find someplace to go out in his blaze of righteous glory. "Oh Bill... you are just morbidly hypothesizing." Maybe... I hope so.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:51 AM We have some shocking statistics above, of comparative figures of various nations regarding death by gunshot. The statistic for the US in comparison with the others is almost unbelievable, and an absolute disgrace to that wonderful nation. But Kendall endeavours to prevent any of the rest of us from drawing attention to this situation, because his Kendallship finds it "A pain in the ass"! Really, Kendall; I am astounded. I should really have expected better of you. Best Regards ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 16 Dec 12 - 10:59 AM How many times in real life has an armed intruder, bent on mass murder, been taken out by an armed civilian (or even a police officer) before he could kill anybody? I'll rephrase that. How many times does it even *appear* that a hero has prevented a mass killing by drawing down faster than the heat-packin' bad guy? Or even managed to *cut short* a shooting spree by nailing the gunman when he wasn't looking? Come on, guys. How many? I want to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Stu Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:03 AM Fuckity hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: John P Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:08 AM Kendall, it's time for me to call you out. You got pretty hot earlier when you thought someone was calling you a liar. Here's a hint: if you don't want to be called a liar, don't tell lies. Below is a post I made earlier. Your response was to say, "John, most of the things you listed are in effect and have been for some time." Bullshit. In order to say that, you have to either be a liar or too ignorant to be part of this discussion. Please tell me which of the proposed laws below are in existence, nationwide, and adhered to our government. I'm tired of your crap. If we can't have a reasoned debate on the issue, then you are a waste of time. Your dismissiveness on this subject is harmful to our national dialog. According to the paper this morning, we have a mass shooting in this country every three months. What are you doing about it? Another hint: loudly proclaiming over and over again that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" makes you sound like a spoiled child. Can you refute the statement that people with guns kill way more people than people without guns? For reference, read the next to last paragraph in my post below. Please respond to it in some way that actually answers it. Please note that I still haven't suggested taking any guns away from any responsible gun owners. I'm just asking for a definition of the phrase "responsible gun owner", and for actual action to ensure that all gun owners are responsible. The earlier post: I keep hearing that "no responsible gun owner would do this" or "no responsible gun owner would do that". The problem isn't the responsible gun owners. It's that we let irresponsible people have guns. There are a few things we could do that would allow responsible gun owners to keep their guns, but let the rest of us have a little more confidence that the person next to us on the freeway or behind us in the grocery line isn't both mentally unstable and carrying a gun: A requirement for extensive training for all gun owners. Extensive background checks and a demonstrated need before we give concealed weapons permits. The right to sell a gun should be very difficult to obtain. A fascination with guns should probably be a disqualifier. No automatic firearms of any kind. Any gun that's confiscated gets destroyed. All guns should be securely locked up when not in use. Stolen guns get that way because they aren't adequately secured. Allowing a gun to fall into the hands of your unsupervised child should be a felony. As for the statement that if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns, I would like to point out that if guns are illegal, someone has to become a criminal before they use a gun. The way things are now, many crazy people who shoot others don't become criminals until they open fire. If the criminality happened earlier in the process, we'd have a better chance of keeping it from getting to the shooting stage. Also, most people are law-abiding and wouldn't buy a gun if it was illegal to do so. The problem is the ones who buy them legally and then go crazy or allow their guns to be stolen by other people who go crazy. Besides, if only criminals have guns, it will be easier to tell who they are. There are statistics that show that a gun in the home is four times more likely to be used on a friend, neighbor, or family member than on an armed intruder. It makes me want to quiz people about gun ownership before I visit them. It makes me angry that people are allowed indiscriminate gun ownership anyway. As soon as the gun lobby can convince me that all gun owners are responsible, I'll support the so-called right to bear arms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 16 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM It seems that the constitution of the USA is cast in 1776 stone and nobody has the fortitude to make changes. 2/3 of a majority to changes is not democracy; 50%+1 is democracy! If Obama were to pose a referendum to the people of the USA creating changing gun ownership rights and it were to pass, would he be wrong to declair it into law or would the goverment dare to ignore the democratic wishes of its people? That certainly would show leadership! |
