Sandy Hook.

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Bebelina, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    The national guard has rendered the second amendment obsolete
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That may be - although the victims of the National Guards in Central American countries might differ in that assessment, as might the post-Katrina folks deprived by Federal edict of their National Guard and suddenly subject to squads of mercenaries going door to door confiscating firearms.

    Of course, most of those folks were black people - arbitrary disarmament had been a fact of their lives for centuries. That is and has been the obvious key step in oppression, worldwide and history long.

    But we can find white people in such positions - in the bankrupt California towns of San Bernardino and Stockton, say, where the absence of police has been followed by large boosts in violent crime throughout what had been quiet and peaceful neighborhoods, and the response of the local authorities has been - and I quote - "Load your guns and lock your doors".

    So that may be: but it has not rendered the amendment nonexistent, meaningless, or even vague.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. LoRaan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    You will never convince some people that it is in their best interest to have the general populace armed. In their minds they are surrounded by idiots who can barely add two and two. They think about how they would react with a weapon and assume everyone is worse than they are. They cannot concieve a responsible weapon owner as they cannot be one themselves. These are the people that support gun control.

    I pity them. They see a terrible ugly world they cannot trust.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I fail to see how this is going to help an unarmed little old lady being mugged and not allowed to defend herself with a gun.

    Do you agree that the violent crime rate is lower in the gun totting USA when compared to the not allowed to own and carry a gun England?
    Do you agree that where people are allowed to carry a gun, the numbers of violent crimes per capital are reduced?

    Lastly, are you in favor of giving one group of Citizens civil rights that the rest of the Citizens do NOT enjoy? As in you think its GOOD to allow the police to carry guns and NOT allow the Citizens who hire them to do likewise? That fly's in the face of two centuries of American culture. Its really IMO just another example who why I'd prefer the Union to dissolve. There's little common culture that holds the Nation together as far as I am concerned. Perhaps something akin to a loose federation similar to Europe would serve the actual people living in the USA better. Frankly, I don't own a gun. I have a licenses to own a gun (thank you Mr. State for that). I have had guns pointed in my face on three occasions. One where I was fairly sure I was going to be shot in the head. Probably the closest I've come to dying. You will NEVER remove guns from society and so the best option is to ensure as many Citizens as possible are allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves. When that gun was being picked up and pointed into my face, really, if pure dumb luck hadn't intervened I'd of been shot dead.

    As for the psychopaths in society. Of course no one wants some loon to have access to a gun, a knife, anything that may harm themselves or worse, others. But, this is a problem with society. Which is, IMO thanks to decades of Progressive Politics, very very sick. We're probably one of the most medicated nations on earth, if not then the most. Maybe London outdoes us in terms of SSRI use? Not to mention the horror that is public school. Its not even natural for children to be around so many other children without a FOUR to ONE adult to child supervision. Certainly a 50 children to 1 adult is not natural and is again a modern phenomena, actually invented by the Prussians to create a industrial factory work force. The Prussians modeled their educational system after the military. If you want obedient worker cogs, our public schools are the means to become one. IN this context Peer pressure is also a modern phenomenon. It seems to mean this unnatural schooling system together with peer pressure, which is also unnatrual, equates to a high number of children shooting other children. Anyway, IMO so long as we refuse to addressing these issues and to skeptically challenge what we THINK is normal, then we will continue to live in a violent society where from time to time these horrible events take place.

    Again, if a State was to succeed from the Union and really return to our Liberal Conservative roots, I'd be very happy to move there if opportunity availed itself. This experiment has pretty much run its course and we've learned a few things along the way. Time to start again.
     
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Just as an aside, how are 'cops' going to find and confiscate the guns of a crazy person BEFORE they are recognized as being crazy?

    I mean, imagine if some one is a bit off in the head, they have a few guns, we'll just your average 6 shooter, and they walking into a local mall and start shooting. As which point are the Cops going to confiscate the guys guns?
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,632
    Same way they can arrest someone for, say, being drunk and disorderly without being found guilty of that crime.

    No, at that point they just kill him.

    Wouldn't it be better to get him to a psychiatrist and confiscate his guns the day before, when he was just ranting and threatening to "start killing people?"

    By preventing an insane 30 year old guy from killing her and a dozen other people in the mall before she ever gets a chance to be mugged.

    ?? No.

    Even the clinically insane and the criminals?

    Somalia has _very_ little government intrusion on people's lives, and their immigration policies are quite liberal. Low taxes as well. Brunei, Qatar and the UAE all have no income tax, if that's your thing.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No one is making that argument. Obviously no one can confiscate guns from crazy people if their craziness is not known. But once it is known, actions can be taken.

    Fortunately most people don’t just flip from sanity to insanity. It is a process. In the recent mass murders, the perpetrators had a history of mental illness and their illness was known.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And they got their guns from their relatives, a couple of them anyway.

    Is the plan to confiscate weapons from all the relatives of people the government thinks are crazy, as well?

    It's not that better mental health response, gun sequestration from the mentally ill, solid background checks for at least some guns, etc, are bad ideas. It's just that they won't help much, especially in the short term.
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well in Newtown, that was true. And that is why education needs to be a part of the solution. In Colorado, it is my recollection his family had nothing to do with his weapons procurement. Had his illness been reported, it could have prevented his arms purchases. As I have said many times, there is no one magical solution to this problem.
     
  13. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    The point of the second amendment is not the right to guns, it is the right to defend. If the constitution was written before the advent of guns, then imagine what might be written there instead. Common sense insists that we take a broader view of the second amendment.

    The point of the second amendment is that civilian power must never be outmatched by governmental power. In other words, the government must be the first to disarm, not the other way around. But we are past that point. The gun has already been invented, and barring some divine world restructuring(*wink), we can never go back to the time before guns. Therefore, civilian gun ownership must be defended and encouraged. Military style weapons should be especially encouraged.

    We can't outlaw death and chaos; it's the nature of life. People, including kids, will die tragically and unfairly. Don't blame our freedoms for that. Blame god. It's by His design that we act this way.

    We must cherish our freedoms above all else, including innocent lives, and defend our freedoms until the time that God says things will be different for the human race, and God himself confiscates our guns.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,632
    Nope. Just require them to lock them up. Don't want to lock them up? They lose their guns.

    There's no one solution, no one "magic bullet" if you will. All we can do is reduce the opportunities that criminals have to do their killing with the most efficient weapons out there.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You have accurately recited the classic right wing spin on the Second Amendment. But you need to bone up on your American history and learn the true story. Back in the day when the Constitution was drafted, arms were not as plentiful as they are now and the American government was not as wealthy as it is today. As a result, it was not uncommon for individual soldiers to supply their own weapons when drafted into the service of a militia. So the Second Amendment was to assure the federal government that they could easily raise an armed militia to defend the state. It was not added to the Constitution so that the authority of the state could be challenged. As previously pointed out, our Founding Father, George Washington raised and led an army to put down a rebellion during his first term in office. The rebellion has gone down in history as The Whisky Rebellion. A group of citizens didn’t like taxes imposed by the state and rebelled. You might want to read up on it.

    Last I checked, no one was trying to outlaw death and chaos and no one is blaming our freedoms for death and chaos. What people are trying to do is to create a country that is safer for our children. Using your line of logic, we shouldn’t have traffic laws or make any law that makes us safer. That is silly.

    Yes we must cherish our freedoms and our heritage and honor all those who have gone before us to give us what we have. But that doesn’t mean we should not strive to make our lives better for us and for our children.
     
  16. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    I don't see how that would work out in America.
    - Before you can buy this gun you must first answer these questions?
    - Ok.
    - Are you insane?
    - What?
    - Are you mad?
    - What the hell?
    - Are you crazy?

    And somewhere in this "conversation" a gun blows off.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,632
    I think it works like this:

    "Before you can buy this gun you have to get this background check. Everyone does. Just give me your ID, should only take two or three days."
    "Uh, OK. Can you hold onto the gun for me?"
    "Sure!"

    Three days later -

    "Hey, sorry, it came back disapproved. Probably some mistake. Here's the number you can call to get it straightened out; I'll hang on to the gun for you until then."
    "That sucks!"
    "Yeah, it does suck. Damn bureaucrats."
    "Damn bureaucrats is right!"
     
  18. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Mhm, but if the person is already proven to be crazy, do you think he/she will settle for "damn bureaucrats"? No, of course not, the person will take the gun from the gunsellers weakened bureaucrat arms and smash in his face with it, then grab som bullets and go out and kill every person in sight in a crazy rage rampage.

    Or, the gunseller will take the risk and sell the gun without registration, to gain some extra money on the side. And..repeat the above scenario.

    Are gunseller the moral type?
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,632
    Perhaps! Of course if you say "good morning sir!" he's likely to take offense and do the same thing. After all, he's crazy.
     
  20. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    My point exactly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. rodereve Registered Member

    Messages:
    216
    Well stricter gun laws are less practical now because you've already given all the gun-crazy people guns. If the case was that no one had guns, and stricter gun control was instated then you started handing out guns, then it'd be the right way to go. So increase gun control laws now might not solve current problems, and may cause future ones (underground dealing of arms). The main problem I have is why are the popular sites of shootings at schools. Just kill yourself, or if you have a problem with society then target (I'm not advocating, just trying to make rational their irrational actions) government buildings or political events. But why schools!?!

    And forget the psychiatry programs. The focus should be prevention not treatment. Solve the social problems behind why people are snapping and resorting to mass shootings. It's not just a matter of having crazy people in your society. I meet crazy people all the time in Canada, they're just sitting on subway trains or at Mcdonalds, its only in the US where there's a popular trend of school shootings. so its not crazy people per se, its crazy people in America
     
  22. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Heh.

    Bebelina... you are aware that some of us know of a certain history with you, that would seem to indicate that violence is not the personal anathema you claim it to be?
    Particularly when there is an emotional investment involved. Yes?

    I am actually a little surprised you're coming down on the side you are, with reference to this particular debate.
    Are you getting old, Bebelina? A little slower, like jelly coagulating in a refrigerator?


    And then on to this Billvon character....

    This is the guy who ascertained that the NRA has reacted more emotionally to Sandy Hook than the anti-gun lobby. Yes, he actually said that.
    Upon being questioned, and in order to to prove this, he seizes upon one small point in a dialogue with me, and types only "QED".

    That which is to be demonstrated.
    So basically, his entire argument rests upon the response of one person, not even a member of the NRA, who is in opposition to himself. I don't even live in the USA.
    One point, one person... and this is his case. One which, it would appear, he garners great satisfaction from, given his continued presence here.

    Isn't it interesting to see what a man will cling to in order to justify himself.
    Like watching a man in a raging torrent, clinging to a log and congratulating himself on beating the river... rather than merely surviving.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You have some good points. It is not just the supply of guns. It is a number of things. Our healthcare system has been inferior to Canada for many decades now in that not everyone is given access to adequate healthcare in The United States, especially the indigent and working poor. And yet the average American pays almost twice what you Canucks pay. We need to look at laws that would have actually prevented these incidents from occurring. New York recently passed a gun control act that I think is a very good start.

    As for prevention of mental illness, I don't think the science is there yet. We do have treatment for mentally ill including confinement. And we used to confine those with violent tendencies, but it is cheaper to let them run free and not treat them, and that has been how we addressed the mental illness issue in the States.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013

Share This Page