Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I see what you're posting, and I ask a question based on that. What's so hard about this?
A Gun control solution - perhaps
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Nothing I've posted provides a basis for any question of yours posted here.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
So you can tell us why gunner parrot NRA TV?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I really don't care what you're posting. I'm pointing out that NRA TV is the source for the memes used here and elsewhere. It is the propaganda organ of the gun club, the Volkischer Beobachter of the extremists.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Curiously, I do not read NRA literature and had never even heard of NRA TV until you brought it up here. If I have a constitutional question I read the constitution. If I have a legal question, I read the supreme court's decisions and commentary.
You seem to be an expert on the NRA and it's memes-----and on NRA TV = you much watch it a lot?
Are you sure that you are not obsessing on this?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
If I had more interest in your posts I wouldn't be surprised to see meme that originated there. Are you sure you're not being remotely controlled?
You have no way of knowing until you watch some of it yourself.
Then quit replying to my posting - absolutely none of which comes from the NRA or anything connected with the NRA, all of which originated elsewhere and long ago or immediately and in directly specific response to what appears right here - when "pointing out".
I know for a fact none of my "memes" came from NRA TV. They predate NRA TV by decades. Even my "meme" of "bothsides irrational jamb", which includes NRA TV as exemplifying one of the "sides" (and some folks here as fair representations of the "other") predates NRA TV by decades.
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Okay then. But telling what I can and cannot post will just be frustrating for you.
well except for your propaganda that the second amendment is supposed to provide for an individual right to a gun which is just NRA propaganda that started in the late 70's after the revolt of cincinnati. i mean you unwaveringly repeat that NRA propaganda as fact and pretend that their wasn't a decades long effort to rewrite the meaning of the second amendment i mean if we ignore that maybe that statement has some truth to it.
I apologize if this is too far off-topic, thought I'd add some technical corrections to others' recent comments.
You're mistaken. Israel generally refuses to confirm or deny operations attributed to it until substantially later, near-total strategic ambiguity. They only just recently admitted to bombing a secret Syrian nuclear breeder reactor under construction 10 years ago, and claim to have committed hundreds of strikes in Syria since the civil war began despite only a few dozen incidents making it to press. So they not only tend to stay silent when accused of conducting a strike, but they've also claimed activities for which no one publicly accused them.
Maybe they felt they had to prove that they wouldn't allow Russia to stand in the way of fundamental national security objectives, nukes be damned. Why is Russia positioning its forces around weapons cargoes illegally destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon? Some media claim that it wasn't Israel taking advantage of US threats to strike, but rather Iran trying to take advantage of the situation to quietly ship weapons to Lebanon.
Their present coordination with Jordan, Egypt and now Saudi Arabia appears to be quite amicable. There are lots of marginalized Lebanese citizens who claim they'd be delighted to see Israel strike at Hezbollah, despite their displeasure with the disorganized way it did so in 2006, and plenty of Syrians who call for Israel to increase its assistance to rebels on the border as well as strikes on vital Assad targets. Also there's the Kurds- Israel and the US are some of the only countries providing any substantial level of support, as has been the case for many decades. I think Israel would have far more friends in the region if they complied with international law and negotiated in good faith for the creation of a separate Palestinian state, but they're not completely isolated either, especially when Israel's enemies are in the midst of ethnically cleansing most of the Middle East.
You're mistaken. Israel generally refuses to confirm or deny operations attributed to it until substantially later, near-total strategic ambiguity. They only just recently admitted to bombing a secret Syrian nuclear breeder reactor under construction 10 years ago, and claim to have committed hundreds of strikes in Syria since the civil war began despite only a few dozen incidents making it to press. So they not only tend to stay silent when accused of conducting a strike, but they've also claimed activities for which no one publicly accused them.
Maybe they felt they had to prove that they wouldn't allow Russia to stand in the way of fundamental national security objectives, nukes be damned. Why is Russia positioning its forces around weapons cargoes illegally destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon? Some media claim that it wasn't Israel taking advantage of US threats to strike, but rather Iran trying to take advantage of the situation to quietly ship weapons to Lebanon.
Their present coordination with Jordan, Egypt and now Saudi Arabia appears to be quite amicable. There are lots of marginalized Lebanese citizens who claim they'd be delighted to see Israel strike at Hezbollah, despite their displeasure with the disorganized way it did so in 2006, and plenty of Syrians who call for Israel to increase its assistance to rebels on the border as well as strikes on vital Assad targets. Also there's the Kurds- Israel and the US are some of the only countries providing any substantial level of support, as has been the case for many decades. I think Israel would have far more friends in the region if they complied with international law and negotiated in good faith for the creation of a separate Palestinian state, but they're not completely isolated either, especially when Israel's enemies are in the midst of ethnically cleansing most of the Middle East.
fair enough. Point taken.
Reports I have read suggest that up to 10 Iranian nationals and 3 Syrians were killed in the attack which was primarily on buildings. It looks very surgical to me...and according to the death toll, Iranian focused.
Weakness, created in large part by Israel. The strategy of getting everyone else to fight each other was not a bad one.
From Machiavelli's pov, anyway. In the short run.
Note that a nuclear armed Iran would not be much of a threat to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. But it would be a threat to the instability of the Middle East in general - Iran would have secure borders and solid alliances, and so then might its neighbors. And that would be a threat to Israel - a serious one.
There is a strained parallel with the gun control struggle in the US - an obvious and visible better outcome, not obtainable via current tactics because the current tactics break the alliances necessary.
Delayed - sorry.
My response is to reiterate: the discussion is jambed via public media domination by a two-sided deadlock of irrationality and abandonment of reason; each of these "sides" is a fairly small minority, but their more or less equivalent untrustworthiness has split the large and reasonable majority of Americans into what almost amounts to coin-flip preferences on the occasion of actual decision (vote, etc). In such a circumstance, the status quo will tend to carry - human nature.
The status quo in the US will have even more weight than you are accustomed to from not only long US history but a cultural bent toward "high authoritarian" personalities: about a third of Europeans, more than 40% of Americans, score "high authoritarian", and such people resist change more than others.
In other words, imho your perception of universal deranged paranoia regarding guns is an obscured view of the American public. The "bothsides" fight hides the reasonableness of the majority.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Since you're obviously a bad judge of people who take carrying a gun seriously, I really doubt you have any basis for your judgement of teachers either. If you knew enough about concealed carry, you'd also know that I'm not trivializing anything.
Secret Service? What are you talking about? It's like you read a headline somewhere and then try to remember what it said by playing Boggle.
Yep, teachers who obviously don't understand concealed carry, because they think it includes the gun EVER leaving their person. And that you think that's a valid objection just illustrates your own ignorance.
Not "weeks" of training, and exactly what any other concealed carry permit holder would do. Take cover, call police, evacuate, and don't be the aggressor unless lives are clearly in danger, which in that case they weren't, since there were no students in the room. That teacher was also illegally carrying in school, which obviously wasn't stopped by laws to the contrary.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it's a bad idea to have a gun in a home with an abuser. Is that news? Who said a gun could prevent an intimate partner rape? That takes seeing the warning signs and leaving the relationship.
Guns in Intimate Partner Violence: Comparing Incidents by Type of Weapon
Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the frequency, nature, and outcome of weapon use in intimate partner violence (IPV) and to assess compliance with related gun policies.
Results: Of the 35,413 incidents, 6,573 involved hands, fists, or feet, and 1,866 involved external weapons of which 576 were guns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5361762/
No, they have not "lobbied for years against measures that would keep guns out of abusers’ hands." The reality is that they have fought for due process of law, like when the ACLU fought the Obama rule that tried to remove gun rights from Social Security recipients without due process. https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the frequency, nature, and outcome of weapon use in intimate partner violence (IPV) and to assess compliance with related gun policies.
Results: Of the 35,413 incidents, 6,573 involved hands, fists, or feet, and 1,866 involved external weapons of which 576 were guns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5361762/
Every abuser law lobbied against in some way violated due process, guaranteed by the Constitution. What they have done instead of violating due process:
Since 2015, half a dozen states with a Republican-controlled legislature and a Republican governor have passed modest gun laws that mostly deal with a growing consensus on guns: that domestic abusers shouldn’t have access to them. Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee and North Dakota have all prohibited convicted domestic abusers from getting guns, according to Laura Cutilletta with the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control group that tracks state legislation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-pass-a-bill-limiting-peoples-access-to-guns/
As students in Florida and across the country express their outrage over inaction to strengthen lax gun laws, political leaders from both parties are coming out in support of gun violence restraining orders (GVRO’s). In the past few days, GVRO’s have been written about favorably in the National Review, and supported by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, former Governor Jeb Bush, and other prominent conservatives.
https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=759
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-pass-a-bill-limiting-peoples-access-to-guns/
As students in Florida and across the country express their outrage over inaction to strengthen lax gun laws, political leaders from both parties are coming out in support of gun violence restraining orders (GVRO’s). In the past few days, GVRO’s have been written about favorably in the National Review, and supported by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, former Governor Jeb Bush, and other prominent conservatives.
https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=759
Meadows was originally charged with aggravated murder. On Monday, the charge was dropped to involuntary manslaughter.
...
The mother of three had filed for a restraining order against her husband in 2011, writing on the order that she was afraid he would kill her and the children. She later withdrew the order and returned to her husband.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...en-who-killed-father-gets-deal-spares-n762906
According to Alexander, she tried to escape through the garage, but the garage door would not open.[3] This account was confirmed by Gray in a sworn deposition,[4] although investigators found no problem with the door. According to all accounts, Alexander then retrieved her gun from her vehicle and went to the kitchen. Alexander fired a "warning shot" towards Gray with his children nearby, which hit the wall near Gray at the height of his head, then deflected into the ceiling.[6][7] The single shot did not injure anyone.[8] According to one source, Alexander had fired the warning shot because of Florida's stand-your-ground law, a law that allows self-defense, such as lethal force, in life-threatening situations, but a warning shot was not legal at that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case
The first seems to have been retaliation, instead of self-defense to imminent threat, and a reduced charge, likely due to age. Her mother had returned to that situation, even after claiming it was life-threatening. ...
The mother of three had filed for a restraining order against her husband in 2011, writing on the order that she was afraid he would kill her and the children. She later withdrew the order and returned to her husband.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...en-who-killed-father-gets-deal-spares-n762906
According to Alexander, she tried to escape through the garage, but the garage door would not open.[3] This account was confirmed by Gray in a sworn deposition,[4] although investigators found no problem with the door. According to all accounts, Alexander then retrieved her gun from her vehicle and went to the kitchen. Alexander fired a "warning shot" towards Gray with his children nearby, which hit the wall near Gray at the height of his head, then deflected into the ceiling.[6][7] The single shot did not injure anyone.[8] According to one source, Alexander had fired the warning shot because of Florida's stand-your-ground law, a law that allows self-defense, such as lethal force, in life-threatening situations, but a warning shot was not legal at that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case
The second was obviously not life-threatening, since you do not fire warning shots for imminent threats (necessary for a stand your ground defense).
It infantilizes women to assume they cannot find and understand the laws.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Who said a gun could prevent an intimate partner rape?
Maybe you missed where I didn't specify intimate partner/acquaintance rapes, which seems to be the straw man you are making. Yes, if someone knows you have a gun, it is much less effective for defense (which is why open carry and having a gun in an abusive relationship are bad ideas). I said, "It doesn't take a gun to rape, but it does take one to stop a rape." Are you saying you have other ways to stop a rape?
"effect on adult aggression"
"Adult" being the operative word there. Like, after most cognitive development.
It doesn't appear to be inevitable at all, unless you're paranoid. School mass shootings have actually declined since the 90s, while gun sales have increased.
You are. Look at this:
In your dreams.
Weeks of training. And somebody has to pay for it.
And that's who you're starting with - teachers who know their job, and are trying to figure out how anyone expects them to incorporate carrying a loaded firearm into it.
That's prior to handling anything like an active shooter. That's just not setting up a disaster on their own.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
You can't trivialize reality. It is what it is.
And? Do you really think those are the teachers who are going to volunteer to carry? That seems highly unlikely. I guess you think teachers and gun owners are mutually exclusive groups.
Again, no teacher would handle an active shooter any different than any other concealed carrier.
Thanks for your opinion... and points taken...
Are you saying that there is no solution to the gun control issue?
From here it certainly sound like it. As you describe, the reality of significant social inertia being as it appears to be, renders a solution impossible given the way the minorities, as you call them, fight. That doesn't look like changing any time soon IMO.
(unless of course you change the underlying conditions that lead to this abysmal situation. That being Fear levels.)
The minorities, pro and against, are only symptomatic of an underlying paranoia.
Last edited:
So uhm... how long before the next one according to your stats?
and I shall repeat my question:
I would like to ask our resident NRA inspired gun advocates how they intend to fullfill their obligation with regards to protecting their family, children and friends from what appears to be inevitable.?
(any mass shooting - not just schools )