jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (123 posts)

When will people start thinking for themselves?

  1. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 4 years ago

    Fear is a powerful tool to lead people to do stupid things! Example: running out and buying guns and ammo because they "are led to believe", the current administration is going to take away all guns! To listen to radio and tv news shows using the word "civil war!" Using our children and grandchildren as "pawns" to sell more guns. Dialog has shifted from the lose of so many lives in schools and shopping centers across this Great Nation, to everyone needs a gun! Laughable at best! Are guns really more important then our children's lives? Has the Great Conservative Republican Party, who cared about people, been replaced by the extreme religeous right and tea party? Again, using "fear" as their tool to manipulate peoples thinking? I'm sure I'll be attacked for this post, but so be it! I'm an Independent who cares about his fellow man. Who refuses to be tricked by foolish fear tactics! And I'll venture to say the majority of Americans are for gun control and 'NOT buying into this Fear Mentality!" Let me know what you think.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Buying more guns isn't particularly dangerous; it costs a little money that is replaceable.

      Far more dangerous is the mistaken idea that removing guns will result in removing killers.  Follow that line of reasoning, put our faith, efforts and resources into removing guns and we lose more children.  Children that are NOT replaceable.

      As you say, fear is a powerful motivator, particularly for those that don't actually examine the problem and the experience of others; just react through fear and/or grief. 

      It's not laughable, though - merely very sad as we will only have more grieving parents even as we pat ourselves on the back for "solving" the problem.  Using the bodies of children for pawns in the attack on freedoms than harm no one is not wise, but I'm sure we'll continue to do so.  It is, after all, "common sense" as well as being very PC at the moment.

      1. movingout profile image60
        movingoutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And who said all guns were being removed? Discussion revolves around assault type weapons, large clips and magazines.  I wish someone could explain to me, why anyone, other then our military, has a need for an assault type weapon? Now if I watch Fox News or listen to extreme Right radio, I'm lead to believe the government wants all our guns. Pure hogwash! But many are buying into that "Fear Tactic!"

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Might I ask, when was the last time someone was killed with a legally owned automatic rifle?  I've never heard of any such murders, let alone enough to justify taking them away from someone.

          As I said, we'll delude ourselves into believing that we're doing something while more people are killed.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            323 people in 2011 were killed with a rifle. That's anything from a .22, to(presumably) automatic rifles.

            From a statistical standpoint, it's completely emotional to focus on 'assault rifles'.
            From a logical standpoint, it's completely irrational to focus on the cosmetic features of a rifle(as if a pistol-grip makes a rifle more deadly).

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Although I doubt you intended to, you are aware that you did not answer the question in the slightest?

              When was the last murder from a legally owned automatic rifle?  You might also indicate how many per year we see on the average.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, I have no idea, I don't think anybody keeps track of that. My point was, even if you include ALL rifles, it's a statistical 0.(Actually the same odds as being struck by lightning).

                I don't think I've ever heard a story, but you know how it goes. Something gets picked up by the media, and everyone is a flutter over 'assault rifles', when they can't even define what those assault rifles are.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I kind of figured that.  And the question of what an assault rifle has been a major problem, seems to me, in most of these recent threads on gun control.  Seems to have settled down to automatic weapons, but it also seems that those wanting to ban nearly all weapons include anything black, or with an open style stock, or semi-automatic, or that will hold more than 3 rounds, or, or, or.

                  To those people "assault" is just handy scare word, used to further the agenda of banning all weapons ASAP.

          2. psycheskinner profile image82
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We also had a ten year long ban that wasn't the end of the world.  Giving the police the right to seize such weapons would reduce their legal (e.g. Lanzos mother, Holmes) and illegal ownership--and so overall availability.

            1. tammybarnette profile image60
              tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Excellent point, In another forum I proved that since 2004 when the assault ban was lifted we have moved from position 68 to number ! in homocidal deaths with a gun...History has proven that the ban was effective on decreasing gun deaths.

              1. 60
                whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Then maybe you can answer why when that Connecticut had an assault weapons ban in place did a shooting involving an assault weapon take place? Why when Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws they lead the nation in gun deaths?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe because the Newtown shooting wasn't done with an assault weapon.  Just an ordinary semi-automatic rifle that, while it certainly looks mean, has no more capability than millions of other hunting rifles.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ?

                No.

                2004 there were 9,326 firearm-homicides reported to the FBI.
                2012 there were 8,583 firearm-homicides reported to the FBI.

                I see no basis for that claim, unless 67 other countries all went from extremely high gun death rates to extremely low gun death rates during that time period.

              3. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Might I ask if we're #1 in homicide rate?  Nothing I've seen would indicate that at all, yet it seems quite pertinent.

                1. tammybarnette profile image60
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I will have to dig for the link and bring it over, I actually found it by accident when another hubber had tried to disagree with a source I had and his information was from 2004, but I was able to update the page and found by 2011 we had moved to 7th place, but my article claimed #1, be back when I find the links:)

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, no, no.  I don't really doubt that we are #1 in gun homicides.  I just don't believe that that number is pertinent as the dead don't care what killed them and there is no evidence that limiting guns will decrease the killing one iota.

                    Don't really know why I posted at all; I know you've seen me claim this before and are tired of seeing it as much as I'm tired of repeating it.  It just kind of bugs me, I guess, when people assume that limiting gun related homicides will automatically reduce the number of people murdered.  Experience from all over the world plainly shows that not to be true but the assumption is still there.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              1.  Lanzo's mother did not, as far as we know, own any assault weapons.  At least he did not use one.  Your point, then, is??

              2.  You seem to be assuming the denying legal ownership will limit illegal ownership.  Your evidence, except that are fewer to steal?  Bear in mind that those are very expensive and legal owners will take very good care of them.

              3.  The world did not end, but with no murders from assault weapons the ban did no good, either.  Why limit them then?  You don't want one, I don't want one but some folks do.  If we have experienced no harm from that ownership why not allow it?

              1. 60
                whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                He used a Bushmaster ar-15, where he got it I don't know.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Which, not being able to fire multiple rounds with one trigger press, isn't classified as an assault weapon.  That's what I said.  (It apparently belonged to his mother, at least from what I've seen.)

                  1. 60
                    whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Just clarifying what the ban was for, it would be and was considered an assault weapon under Connecticut law.

    2. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Movingout, I do not attack, I commend you for getting out here. The rabid right is overreacting and has as its  foundation ,sheer terror and fear. They know that it is ridiculous to think that all their guns are to be confiscated. Obama has done little to even deal with the issue his entire first term.

      I don't want to be a crass promoter, but in my article, the subject of gun control, I made it clear that the status quo is going to change, How many Titanic scale disasters will it take over and over before people want to ban cruise liners and the ocean itself?  We have crossed a threshold, there are too many people and too many massacres to be ignored by the public any longer. 
      I have also said that neither the first nor the second amendment was meant as an absolute. So what about all those rightwing blue noses that want to censor everything outside of their provincial experiences?  Are they as adament to protecting the 1st amendment as the second? After all it was said that free speech does not extend to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. When they took the tommy guns off from the street in the 20s and 30's in reaction to mobsters and mayhem operating without any restraint., obviously  the 2nd amendment to be interpreted in such a way that made it clear that the right to possess any kind of weapon had limits So how did this play into the addled thinking of so many on the right? None of the other amendments to the Constitution are  sanctified in such a way.

      The rightwinger is just paranoid and ridiculous and in the  light of all this violence need to be told that the status quo ain't makin' it!

      Thanks for allowing me to share my humble opinion on the matter

    3. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't want to get overly involved in this discussion, and what I say here may not be exactly on point.  For me, the bottom line is this:  why would any citizen need to own a rapid fire assault weapon, and if you were a police officer, how would you like to have to deal with criminals who own them?  I am all for the right to bear arms, and I own and use several myself, but rapid fire assault weapons need to be removed.  People who use them can kill too many people too fast, which is why so many are dying in these recent mass murders.  End of lecture!

    4. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are 100% correct about fear being a powerful tool. If Christians and the T.E.A. Party are so radical, who was in Newtown last night building community?  What do you know about the Taxed Enough Already party?

    5. A Driveby Quipper profile image60
      A Driveby Quipperposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tell me what to think.

    6. GNelson profile image82
      GNelsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Fear sells guns and ammo.  The NRA gun lobby is very good at that.

      1. movingout profile image60
        movingoutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @GNelson, I agree! Fear and the lies they continue to tell about any new gun laws.

    7. Biohit profile image82
      Biohitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Fear is an interesting tool because it brings more fear, so it is infectious in that way and it preys on mass hysteria.

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    sigh... we all need to stop using the words common and sense, as if they somehow go together. All too often, this is the kind of 'logic' that we get from 'common sense':

    Bad Logic Example
    Premise 1: Mass-shootings almost always occur in gun-free zones.
    Premise 2: Gun-free zones are areas where the act of bringing a gun has been restricted, or banned.
    Conclusion: We can lessen the number of shootings in gun-free zones by putting in place more restrictions or bans.

    Good Logic Example
    Premise 1: Mass-shootings almost always occur in gun-free zones.
    Premise 2: Gun-free zones are areas where the act of bringing a gun has been restricted, or banned.
    Conclusion: Mass-shooters aren't stopped by virtue of their acts being illegal.

    Good Logic Example
    Premise 1: Killing people in cold blood is illegal.
    Premise 2: Mass-shooters kill people in cold-blood.
    Conclusion: Mass-shooters aren't deterred by laws.

    Good Logic Example
    Premise 1: Most/All people in gun-free zones are unarmed.
    Premise 2: Mass-shooters prefer unarmed crowds.
    Conclusion: Gun-free zones attract mass-shooters.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Or it could be that Mass Shooters like masses. It just so happens that most places where masses gather don't allow guns.  That would mean that Gun-Free zones neither deter nor attract mass shooters.

      If you look through the history of mass shootings often the shooter either suicides or indicates beforehand- via writings left behind- that they are essentially committing suicide by cop.

      If they are planning to die anyway I'm not sure that a gun-free zone is really an attractant in and of itself. I'm not sure it is even a consideration.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If it's not a consideration, then what is the benefit of ensuring that nobody in the crowd has a chance to defend themselves?

        And there are plenty of places where shooters could find large crowds where guns are allowed... it just almost never happens.

        I would argue that if someone has decided to take multiple lives, if only to go out in a blaze of horror, then it absolutely would be a consideration if they could find an area where they could take as many people with them as possible before being stopped.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is assuming a mass shooting with no purpose whatsoever... which is exceedingly rare.

          School shootings-in particular- have targets.  Newton wasn't just to kill many people... it was to kill his mother AND many people.

          Columbine was to kill students at their own high schools.

          Fort Hood was to kill American soldiers.

          Most mass shootings are generally targeted... there are just lots of targets.  The shooter is going to go where those targets are located regardless of gun-free zones... either as a positive or a negative.

          And remember that these people that are going out in a blaze of glory really need someone to shoot them for that to happen.  I would assume that means that they hope SOMEBODY shows up with a gun at some point.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't agree with the 'regardless of gun-free zones' part... because I never hear about that happening. Aurora, for example. The theater James went to wasn't the largest, and it wasn't the closest to where he lived. It was the closest one that was 'no guns allowed'.

            I agree there is usually a purpose, not sure if we ever really find out what it was. I think some people are just broken and want to cause as much pain as possible. Some want to do something that will make them known, they are tired of feeling like they are nameless beings...

            Thanks, by the way, for actually addressing the things I've said... too few people actually do that smile

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A very valid point(s) and it points out the interpreting information and data isn't easy.  There are always facets that we forget to include in our analysis.

        Or we might say that a gun free zone is an attractant but "forget" to mention the fact that being gun free isn't the deciding factor; that the masses of people in such a zone is.  An intentional misdirection, which we always need to be on the lookout for.

        No reflecton on Jaxon's post (it was quite true) but just a comment on the tactics used in debate that need to be watched for.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't mind at all people disagreeing with me or challenging what I say. I love it, it's how my views change.

          I should clarify, when I say 'good logic', I mean valid logic. Valid logic just means that you are drawing the right conclusion from the premises, it doesn't say anything about how valid the premises themselves are.

          All A are B
          All B are C
          Therefore, all A are C.

          That's valid logic. It might not be true, perhaps some A are not-B, but the conclusion is perfectly based on the two premises.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            To be fair... I agreed with your other points.  Which is why I didn't challenge them.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sure - I understood that.  The logic was correct, but that never means a premiss is as well, and therein can lie a problem.  GIGO, that's all.

            Of course, the example of Melissa also points out that additional information can change a logic structure by introducing an additional premiss that invalidates the conclusion or makes it irrelevant.

          3. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You forgot to show the converse of your argument. That an argument which is not logical can also be perfectly true. E.g.

            All dogs are mammals.
            The animal in my garden is a mammal.
            Therefore the animal in my garden is a dog.

            This is not valid logic because the conclusion does not necessarily follow on from the premises (might be a cat in the garden), but all the premises and the conclusion may nevertheless be true.

            So logic tells us exactly nothing about the truth (in the synthetic sense not the analytical sense) of an argument. It just tells us whether an argument is logical or not and nothing else. In that sense, logic is entirely useless at describing the world. For that we need science and scientific method.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, logic isn't useless. You get no truth from that argument because it isn't logically sound. Logic doesn't say that it isn't a dog, it just says that it is incorrect to infer that it is a dog based on the premises.

              Logic says that, if the conclusion is properly inferred from the premises, and the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. That's what makes logic useful.

              Your example shows that invalid logic is useless, and I agree. Not that valid logic is useless.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "No, logic isn't useless. You get no truth from that argument because it isn't logically sound"

                Yes but you can't determine whether it is sound without employing scientific method.

                "Logic doesn't say that it isn't a dog, it just says that it is incorrect to infer that it is a dog based on the premises."

                Again, I agree, but it also doesn't tell you that all dogs are indeed mammals, the animal in my garden is a mammal, and that the animal in my garden is in fact a dog. In other words, the premises and the conclusion are synthetically true (they accurately describe the world) even though the argument is analytically false.

                "Logic says that, if the conclusion is properly inferred from the premises, and the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. That's what makes logic useful."

                As I said, you can't determine the synthetic truth of these premises without applying scientific method.

                "Your example shows that invalid logic is useless, and I agree. Not that valid logic is useless."

                I don't think you meant to say that. I think you meant to say sound logic is useful, not valid logic. We both know that whether an argument is valid or not tells us nothing about the world. I agree, valid/invalid logic and unsound logic is useless. Sound logic is most useful. But the only way to determine whether an argument (about the world) is sound, is through the combination of logic and scientific method. Logic alone is not enough.

      3. 60
        whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A lot of mass killings at gun ranges or gun shows?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nope just a couple of kids that shot themselves in front of responsible adults.

          1. 60
            whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nope is correct, killers don't want to face armed citizens.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nope... they just want to somehow manage to get shot to death.  Perhaps by a passing toaster.

              1. 60
                whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nope, they want to kill as many people as possible and the safest place to do that is where guns are not. You have no idea do you?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If no clue means accepting unproven information from a clearly biased stranger on the internet on his says so alone... then yes I have no clue.

                  There haven't been shooting sprees at gun clubs so that must mean that mass shooters are scared to face gun owners...

                  There also haven't been any shooting sprees at Jenny Craig meetings.  So that must mean that spree shooters are scared of being eaten.

                  Would you actually like to say something of value to me or would you like to trade one line snarks some more?  Either way I'm fine with it.  I can do passive-aggressive as well as you.

                  1. 60
                    whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No clue? Did I say you had no clue? Your Jenny Craig comparison was almost funny. Work on the humor and try again later.

                  2. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol Awesome

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I haven't been to many Jenny Craig meetings, but would they really do that?  Eat a poor, misguide shooter?  Now that's scary - far more so than a mere killer. big_smile

  3. Astra Nomik profile image82
    Astra Nomikposted 4 years ago

    People who have guns or who own them want to keep them. They won't give them up.

    People were murdered in Conneticut by a crazy gunman, and again Obama wants restrictions or bans on guns. He will use every instance of a gun shooting. I think there is another gun shooting story breaking as we speak. This problem will keep happening until enough victims and enough willing persons or groups will overwhelm the gun owners by sheer numbers. If or when that happens, a referendum will probably take place or else the laws will just be changed.

    Maybe the Gun industry should be forced to invent and manufacture weapons that have cancelling features, that can make them stop being used in public places or schools. Detection of guns would help reduce the occurrence of guns being used in schools. New life without parole sentences should apply to anyone for using a gun in a school, and the punishment should be the most severest.

    If some governments in Asia are able to virtually eliminate people buying or using chewing gum or smoking in public, through tough legislation, then why can't guns be severely controlled by legislation in America? The punishment has to fit the crime. And the crime should not be excused for any reasons whatsoever, least of all by stupid laws or politicians who are making fun of us all.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Too many bleeding hearts in America. Punishments are weak.

      As an example, there was a murder in Seattle recently(this is all off the top of my head, minor details might be slightly off), the guy who did the killing had recently been released from a 30 week stint in Juvie... he got that 30-week 'punishment' for, you guessed it, another murder.

  4. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    And the gun control argument isn't based on fear either? Isn't the gun control argument simply another cry for government nannying to protect us from the scary outside world? Because, these people aren't anti-gun, anti-violence or anti-child killing at all - they simply want the government to have a monopoly on those things.

    "Wish someone could explain to me, why anyone, other then our military, has a need for an assault type weapon?"

    Talk about thinking for yourself! Not only has this point become an insatiable meme, it's phrased in exactly the same way every single time. It ignores all of the perfectly rational answers given from various perspectives, and delivered as if this is the argument that'll shut up those gun-nuts forever. Even if I hadn't heard this exact quote on the news a million times beforehand, it would scream of media brainwashing.

    And it proves my point: prohibitionists believe guns, or more specifically assault-weapons, are A-OK just so long as it's the military using them . . . a military that is responsible for the deaths of dozens of civilians every single day.

  5. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago

    Let's look at it from another angle. In its most fundamental form, the NRA is a non-profit gun club that is connected to gun manufactures and uses the 2nd amendment and tyranny as marketing tools. It is in their interest to  promote more guns and get paid by the gun manufactures. The gun manufactures and the NRA then fund congressmen's campaigns via their lobbyists.  The congressmen are then beholden to the gun manufactures and the NRA. 

    If you take the NRA out of the equation, the second amendment becomes what was intended to be in 1791 when it was ratified.  Congressmen can then represent the people instead of gun manufactures and the NRA which are the most powerful lobby organizations in Washington DC.  Then real work would get done.

    In countries like England and Australia where they have banned all weapons, they didn't and don't have the NRA.  I don't know if they have anything like the 2nd amendment. Even if they do, i'm sure it is not about tyranny that occurred in another time and another place.

    But as they say, the toothpaste is already out of the tube and it will be difficult to put it back in, because there are so many guns already available that will not be banned under any circumstances, thanks to the NRA and gun manufactures. Bottom line, it's all about big business!  One more thing, if you want to fire military weapons and be part of a militia, join the military!

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's hard to see any way you could more wrong.

      Tyranny, in governmental terms, is defined as a government that has vested all power in a single individual  That hardly sounds like what we see from the NRA with it's thousands of members.  Alternatively, tyranny could be described as excessive authority exerted by government; the NRA is not a government.

      The second amendment was clearly written with the idea in mind that the federal govt. cannot infringe on the right of citizens to own weapons.  That's what it says, after all.  Remove the NRA from the equation and it becomes just another ping pong ball to be batted around by congress and the supreme court as they "interpret" it according to current politics.

      Congress is incapable of representing the people; their own pocketbooks come first and it appears that that will always be so. The only "real work" they are liable to do is to pad those pocketbooks and entrench their own power base.

      England has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 guns per 1000 people, that of Australia is 15 guns per 1000 people and is about average for the industrialized world.  Neither sounds much like they've "banned all weapons" - accurate information is always preferable to made up facts no matter how well they fit what you're trying to "prove".

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tyranny that occurred in another time and place?

      Tyranny isn't a switch. It isn't just generally turned on. Look at what has happened recently.

      The 1st Amendment has been attacked under the guise of hate crimes.
      The 2nd Amendment is under attack right now.
      The right to privacy has been compromised by the PATRIOT act.
      The right to due process has been completely destroyed, the government can not only hold citizens indefinitely without cause or trial, but it can assassinate them. You really don't think that is a major step toward tyranny? We have laws on the books that give the government the authority to detain and assassinate US citizens without any sort of due process..

      It's not a switch, and we are much closer to tyranny now than we were when the country was founded.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image85
        peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Both of you have miss understood what i'm saying.  I'm not saying that the NRA is a tyrant. I'm saying they promote fear of a tyrant taking over the country to allow the proliferation of more guns.  The Patriot act was put in place by George W. Tyranny is not a switch, but gun people use it as a slippery slope for some thing that may never occur to scare the hell out of people so they can sell more guns, especially military weapons. As far as a ping pong ball goes, that's what you have now because of the NRA.  They have no political office, but yet they carry a big stick when it comes to influencing congress with big money.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I wasn't talking about the NRA. I was pointing out tyrannical things our government is doing, right now.

          Yeah, full tyranny might never occur. But it might, and it is happening now to a degree.

          Your house might never catch on fire, do you really need a fire extinguisher? The fire department is only minutes away, after all.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image85
            peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Funny, this is what you said: "Tyranny, in governmental terms, is defined as a government that has vested all power in a single individual  That hardly sounds like what we see from the NRA with it's thousands of members.  Alternatively, tyranny could be described as excessive authority exerted by government; the NRA is not a government."

            So then we are headed to where a single individual like Obama or his administration are becoming tyrants?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That wasn't me. Maybe you meant to quote someone else?

              1. peoplepower73 profile image85
                peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm sorry it was meant for wilderness.  I'll post it again under his post.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, that's what I said, not Jaxon.

              Aren't we?  Isn't Obama pushing the absolute limits of his power to enact rules and actions without congressional agreement?  Beyond what was ever intended?  Nor is he the first to do so, the Patriot act was just such a thing.

              We continue to go down the road of big government, accepting that our "leaders" have the power to do whatever they want, but the NRA is pretty obviously on the other side of that fence.  It tries to limit those kinds of things, not promote them, and in that respect has my full cooperation.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The NRA, by promoting individual gun ownership, is therefore also promoting fear than an individual will take over the government?  That's quite a stretch to put those two together.

          And no, that congress consistently goes back and forth isn't due to the NRA; it is due totally to the fact that congress refuses to actually compromise on anything.  Whatever party is in power runs roughshod over everything in it's way and ignores the wants or needs of anyone else.

          A big stick?  According to http://www.businesspundit.com/10-of-the … ashington/ the NRA is pretty far down the list of big lobbies, at #8, and gives only about 7% of the money the top ones do.  You might want to look at how much the AARP gave, for instance.  Or agri-business.  Or the tech or mining industries.

          Of course, agri-business just wants money from a near bankrupt nation for not growing crops, not for protecting constitutional rights, so it's not so scary.  Right.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image85
            peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is the website of the NRA lobby group.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions about what you posted. http://www.nraila.org/

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It shows 4 reports on new gun bills/action taken by a congress that isn't particularly concerned with the 2nd amendment, including one about possible presidential action.

              That's supposed to show that an individual is trying to take over govt? That the NRA is the biggest lobby?  I guess I'm not getting the point.

  6. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Bottom line, there is a difference between not thinking for ourselves and not agreeing with you.

  7. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    With the amount of irresponsible people in possession of dangerous weapons, government should do something.  Automobiles are responsible for thousands of deaths.  Many of these deaths occurred due to unlicensed and inebriated operators.  Obviously human beings need to be restrained by their government from anything that may cause them harm.  It is common knowledge that the only people that know best are those that reside in government.  Any other individual is obviously not qualified to protect themselves from themselves.

    We must succumb to their wishes if we want to be safe.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1

      But isn't that all true?  We aren't capable of keeping ourselves safe and need great help to do so.

      Just a while back I saw a report that some young couple was in the hospital; they used a sawzall as a sex toy and she got hurt pretty badly.  We have to put instructions on ladders to not use them for scaffolds; apparently people do that and get hurt.  We have to tell people not to let toddlers topple headfirst into 5 gallon pails of water because they'll drown.

      Apparently we really can't be trusted to take care of ourselves.  Either that or let nature take its course and improve the gene pool....

      1. peoplepower73 profile image85
        peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If the NRA didn't lobby for a sunset provision for the first assault weapon ban, we would not had a lift on the ban since 2004.  Therefore for nine years, we would not of had the proliferation of assault weapons that we now have that are in the hands of good guys as well as bad guys.  Why did there have been a sunset provision?  It sounds like appeasement to me!

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What proliferation?  The country isn't overrun with assault weapons (except, maybe, illegal ones) and according to LiamBean there has been exactly one murder with a legally owned one in 80 years!

          1. peoplepower73 profile image85
            peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Proliferation does not mean being overrun.  It means a rapid increase.  LiamBean is just another hubber.  What are his credentials?

            1. 60
              whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What are yours?

              1. psycheskinner profile image82
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think the primary source if more important than credentials.  The statement is either based on evidence, or not.

                1. 60
                  whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Fine, what is his evidence?

      2. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Or?  Government needs to justify its bloated existence somehow.

        Not that some form of uniform oversight is not necessary.  But, the U.S.A. is a union of fifty sovereign states, inhabited by sovereign individuals.  Each of these sovereign entities should not be dictated to by a ten mile square piece of property. (D.C.).  This is why I fully support giving each legislature their proper status in a national government.  They should pick the Senators for their respective states,  which would be the people's representatives,  as the state reps are all chosen by the people.  I believe this would alter the balance of control in favor of the people themselves.

        If a corporation is a person, so is each state. They should have equal rights as such.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          To a point I wholeheartedly agree.  Things like interstate commerce must be continued, and without laws that are so different as to make it virtually impossible.  Interstate travel, freely done, must continue as must interstate "immigration". 

          To a large degree, though, states should be free to make their own laws.  Maybe we could start by ending the federal grants to states; that gives far too much power to the fed. govt. to "buy" obeisance to their policies.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image92
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They have pursued the aquiescence of the states in the same way they have done the voters.  By producing a majority of the people in dependence of the government for the district of columbia, they have guaranteed power indefinitely.  This is why some sort of balance needs to be given to the states.  State senators being state representatives.

  8. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    Change your collective mind set. Decide that at best guns are a necessary evil and not a "must have" accessory.
    A gun is not a penis and shouldn't ever be mistaken for one, even by those with very small ones.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Grow up.

      And FYI, Freud attributed the fear of weapons to retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

      1. movingout profile image60
        movingoutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        LMAO...the paranoid few in this country are running scared and using lies to convince their few followeres that the POTUS is attempting to remove all guns. Pure hogwash. And if you buy into that thinking, I have some real cheap Ocean Front Property For Sale in Kansas! LMAO....For people to run out and buy every box of shells off the shelves is just pure stupidity and a waste of money. If, and I mean IF, there ever was a revolution, you small time gun owners wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of defeating our Military! yes, our Military, those great Americans risking life and limb to preserve this great country!

      2. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, an excellent and well thought out response to my suggestion that people should grow up.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was just correcting you, fear of weapons is more related to sexual image problems than ownership of weapons.

          You don't see the irony of your own post, telling people to grow up, while simultaneously suggesting that gun owners are trying to make up for being small?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, I see no irony in it at all. Do grown men really have to parade armed to the teeth?

  9. ftclick profile image60
    ftclickposted 4 years ago

    I talked to a friend in Texas and they have had armed guards in schools for at least a decade in Garland (just outside Dallas) so it has worked there but it does cost more to the school district so your taxes will go up or educational material will be sacrificed.  Just get a TSA type scanner with one entrance into the school. No one or two guards are going to stop kids from jumping a back or side fence unless you have cameras monitoring the perimeter. School security is going to eat away at the already lower quality public education. Tough times for growing up and parents too.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Umm.  How about 8 or 10 scanners?  With an armed cop at each one?  As one entrance isn't enough to even come close to fire codes considering the number of people in the building.

    2. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I like that you mention how times are hard for those growing up today smile Back when I was a kis in school, I would have been totally against these ideas, I thought schools were already too much like a prison.I was also reading 1984 and the ideas of camera's would have turned me off for sure. I am for all of these things today because I worry about my children. I live next door to VA Tech, I have 3 in college, that scares me, I also have a 4 yr old who will enter elementary next fall. My youthful self keeps speaking to me that all of my current opinions are based on fear...You have me thinking smile

 
working