The outdated 2nd amendment.

1. 61

   Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

   wilderness ~
   
   Once again, ad nauseam, and I do understand many individuals who live in rural areas tend to favor "Self Schooing or Home Schooling" versus a comprehensive Curriculum in the city, but this is no excuse in the Real World for ignorance or non-understanding ~
   
   The only possible way you are correct is if "A Well Regulated Militia" miraculously DISAPPEARS from the 2cnd Amendment, which I don't anticipate will happen any time soon ~
   
   You absolutely must be in a Militia which is tightly Controlled, Organized, Trained etc. to gain "Arms Rights" Period ~ This is a pre-condition according to our constitution ~ Everyone needs to READ it for themselves ~
   
   Moreover, this right was not established to protect individuals of the colonies/states from TYRANNY as some suggest, but primarily to Protect "We the People" from another "Foreign Invasion" ~
   
   The idea of "Tyranny" is what causes "Conservative Republican Paranoia", the nutcases like Mike Huchleberrybee, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and all other demented individuals who believe our government is the enemy ~ It's a ridiculous notion and ridiculous interpretation ~

   replyreport
   1. 69

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Moreover, this right was not established to protect individuals of the colonies/states from TYRANNY as some suggest, but primarily to Protect "We the People" from another "Foreign Invasion" ~
      
      Where do you get this from? Link please.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Presumably because only a militia is mentioned and it is assumed that a militia will never take on the government (rather a false assumption in view of 4/12/1861!).  Also assumed is that there was no other reason, as none was listed (also false as most laws give no reason).

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You've hit upon one of the terminally failing GOP's primary problems which I've mentioned ad nauseam here and elswhere for years ~
            
            Conservatives, especially "Rural Conservatives" are indeed living in "!861" ~ A visceral state of Perpetual Regression, Pre-Occupied with the thought and anticipation of a Delusional Military Conflict between the States ~
            
            Meanwhile, the majority of the country has Progressed, Modernized, & MOVED ON into the FUTURE ~

            replyreport
            1. 75

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Yes - moved on towards ever more charity for anyone that wants it.  While productivity per person and innovation falls.  "Progression" we call it, and I guess it is, but "progress" towards what?  Third world status?

               replyreport
   2. 75

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and all other demented individuals who believe our government is the enemy ~ It's a ridiculous notion and ridiculous interpretation
      Don't believe that our government is the enemy, they want to run our government and if they convince you and others that they believe them you will help them get rid of the current government and put them in charge.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         The government, to some extent, is a reflection of us. We are the enemy for allowing politicians and the billionaires to continue to destroy our country.

         replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Simple and sad truth ! If  All our for Fathers  could see our government today ; They would have expanded the meaning and content of the second amendment to clarify the idiocy of many of  todays interpretations . Our for-fathers new EXACTLY how dangerous a tyranny  really is to a free people !  AND they new just how closely related to the  tyrannical ,colonial powers some elements of our government were then .....and are now !   
   
   So how about we do this -- Lets scale back the first amendment so that  those like the OP cannot share these opinions ,especially  the ones that make absolutely no sense  !

   replyreport
   1. 85

      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Do you mean scale back the 2nd amendment instead of the first? Further, it's not for-fathers, it's Forefathers.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         
         Here you go Peoplepower .  Here's your sign!

         replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   It's pretty sad that the modern interpretation of the constitution  is so lawyer-ized in language - as to make the simplest of English language so misinterpreted !    "we the people " Is pretty simple , It's basic language , its elementary in understanding and  directness . I can actually hear a modern teacher saying to her students,
   "We the people, now people means you and I children ............"
   
   Yet  "intellectual " and full grown adults can't seem to understand something so entirely basic in understanding  of our language ,-- I never even attended one day of college and I do , perhaps it's critical thinking 101  that gets so many in trouble though !  Perhaps  some one could start a "common sense "  101  course for  the anti- constitution people !
   
   No Peoplepower , I mean scale back the first amendment  , certainly you DO realize that   the first can be  the most misused and Violent constitutional right  of all !

   replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   And a lot of people misrepresent the conservative view that we worry about invasions from outside of America , as to why we need our guns,  Yet as our first national  fathers new , the threats of tyranny will come from within , and they are here  !

   replyreport
   1. 85

      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Can you give examples of why the first amendment is the most missed used and violent of all the constitutional rights?
      
      Can you give examples of an outside invasion and how you would use your gun?
      
      Can you give examples of the "tyranny that is here?"  I and many others would appreciate vivid examples and names  to all three of these questions. 
      
      By the way, in your other comment, you just quoted a very small part of the Preamble to the Constitution.  Here is is in its entirety.
      
      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
      
      There are two things here that relate to our discussion.  Provide the common defence and promote the general welfare.  What do you think those two statements mean?
      
      One more thing.  Notice the writers used the word "insure"which means an insurance policy.  They should have used "ensure" which means to do what every is necessary to complete an action. They used the word "defence" which is the English spelling instead of defense, which is the American spelling.  This tells me they were still under the influence of British rule and were afraid the British were going to attack again, because the British invasion was still fresh in their minds.  You probably don't see the connection with that and the 2nd amendment being ratified in 1791.
      
      Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

      replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Anyone who knows their history with the intent  and the  creation of the American constitution knows that it was created to guard against the tyranny from within this country or outside  of its borders . For one ,    I believe that  the tyrannical powers that truly threaten this  freedom  may very well  come from within our borders  !
   
   That is why the polls of the public opinion vary from one taking to another on any issue .   The
   democracy that we have held to for over two hundred years Is always  in jeopardy,  because it's always in flux .
   
   The freedom of speech , as much as we adore it , has been as misused  as any other right , look at the protests of the  recent ,racist origins . Hence,  it too has created much violence , death and destruction .
   
   It is just  plain sad that those of you who cannot see the forest for the trees regarding violent crime , with guns or without ,  that it is the criminal mind that is at fault , not the constitutional rights born of a self- freed people !    How much longer can your inability to consider reality , blind you to the fact that only law abiding people obey , respect and actually defend the laws  and our constitution of the United States  for that matter ?   
   
   Example- Because one person uses a vehicle  to jump a sidewalk  , mow down a crowd of people  killing several , just how it  then makes any sense at all to outlaw automobiles !
   
   I'll tell you this though , we can argue all we want , the second amendment will remain unchanged , guaranteed !

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Even though we are basically quite civilized:
      Civilized
      "polite, courteous, well-mannered, civil, gentlemanly, ladylike, mannerly; cultured, cultivated, refined, polished, sophisticated; enlightened, educated, advanced, developed. ANTONYMS rude, unsophisticated."

      replyreport
      1. 85

         peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         ahorseback:  You didn't even begin to answer my questions.  You failed, but in your very last sentence, you win.  You win because you have to do nothing and everything stays the same, guaranteed.

         replyreport
6. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

   "Example- Because one person uses a vehicle  to jump a sidewalk  , mow down a crowd of people  killing several , just how it  then makes any sense at all to outlaw automobiles !"
   
   Has anyone said they want to outlaw guns?  I haven't seen it mentioned once.  As per a typical fear-based conservative response to a suggestion to further regulate guns, you mischaracterize the debate so as to make your opponent sound unreasonable.
   
   We require all motor vehicles to be registered with the state.  Registration is renewed on a regular basis.  When someone purchases an automobile, they are required to register it in their name within a certain time period.  Why can't we do this with guns?  Please explain.
   
   To operate a car, one must pass a driving exam and written exam.  One must carry this license with them when driving.  This license must be periodically renewed. Why can't we do this with guns?  Please explain.
   
   Would truly like to hear why these things should not be done.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Has anyone said they want to outlaw guns?"
      
      Yes - several of our politicians take that stance and make no bones that every new law is a step towards it.  The woman politician that got shot is one of them.
      
      Cars - the constitution does not give a right to drive (or even ride a horse, for that matter).  It DOES give a right to own a gun, and those that believe in that right take a dim view of being required to jump through hoops and pay money for something guaranteed by the constitution.

      replyreport
   2. 85

      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you PrettyPanther:  They have made me sound more than unreasonable.  Here are just a few of the words they have used to describe me:  ludicrous, uneducated, wacky, non-sensible, naive, gullible, lacks common sense, ignorant, delusional, stupid, immature, ridiculous...Oh and intellectual!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Their opposition to gun control is emotional, not rational.  If it were rational, they would not protest if guns were regulated similarly to motor vehicles.

         replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Well poor, poor Peoplepower . many have sacrificed themselves   at the intellectual  liberal anti-constitutional  alter .
   
   Prettypanther .,  you as well don't even begin to get it that legal , lawful gun owners have registered every purchase they have encounter  , I know I have .   And just  As the vehicle owner goes - so goes the guy that doesn't  register his car , his gun or his  nuclear weapon !
   
   That is exactly what the criminal mind  celebrates !   That YOU will obey the laws and constitution that he never will !

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So your state requires you to take an exam, both written and practical, then get a picture ID, to operate a gun?  If not, why would you not support this?
      
      Does your state require you to register your gun and renew it on a periodic basis?  If not, why would you not support this?
      
      Please explain.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I have taken hours  and days , weeks of firearms training , of  ethical and morality of firearm and archery  hunting , every gun purchase  in my personal arsenal is registered  with the federal government ,    I have spent thousands of hours , as most sportsman , handling ,   discussing ,  and practicing safe and ethical  firearms use . I fill out a  application for the legal purchase  each time I purchase a gun ,  requiring me to divulge personal ,mental and  legal information that  my government has asked or required me to do to keep my arms ,  I have also spent thousands of dollars in taxes and fees  for the privilege of simply walking in the woods with a firearm . I have to show my picture ID.  divulge my social security number  and  go through an FBI background check .   
         
         What those like yourself never even consider is that those who operate below this legal radar screen don't give two cents worth of  care or concern for the legal aspect of this privilege !   AND your  emotional frustration at  controlling the illegal use of guns  is thrust  into your face by those kinds of idiots !   Why don't you care about holding THEM  as responsible as you do  the  legal sportsman , gun owner ?  I believe that the reason for that is it' requires too much  work on the part of anti gun owners ,  HOLD your political people's feet  to the fire  for once about our broken justice system and leave the law abiding people alone !

         replyreport
   2. 85

      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Just because I think the 2nd amendment is a poorly written document does not make me anti-constitutional.  The framers of the bill of rights didn't like the constitution the way it was written, so they created the first ten amendments to the constitution.  Does that make them anti-constitutional?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         And as Usual , you and your  kind continue to harass law abiding Americans ,  hoping that this continued  insanity of that very act ......somehow changes you emotion guilt about  your lack of accountability and  plague of apathy and frustration  at holding the real people responsible for their acts !   
         
         For you and your kind  it's simply easier to  spout on about another law , another change , another restriction  that will ONLY affect those that live by law  !       That certainly must  ease your guilt about solving the real, the harder  issues , crime , graft , corruption , apathy of our justice system for one ?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I knew you would not answer my direct questions.  You never do.  My "kind"?  What is that? 
            
            How would enacting laws similar to those surrounding the use of automobiles be "harassing" you?  Are you already harassed by the stringent requirements for the use of  your car? 
            
            Again, it would be nice if you would explain why it's different with guns.  Not one of your "kind" ever does.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               It isn't different with guns , That's my point ! Both  cars and guns are heavily regulated already ,   But the criminal ignores both sets of similar regulations , Don't they ?   ?  ?

               replyreport
         2. 85

            peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I'm tired of you making accusations about how people that don't agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment are causing this country to go down the tubes and all we have to do is stop the criminals and that I have apathy for the justice system nothing could be further from the truth.
            
            Do yourself a favor and become educated about the history of the 2nd amendment and find that today's, Supreme Court Justices can't even agree on what is says. You may have apathy about reading the piece in it's entirety, because it is long but let's see if you do.  By the way laws are changed to fit the times and circumstance.  That's why there are amendments to the constitution.  Your accusations about harassing law abiding Americans is unfounded.  I don't have any guilt about what you call solving the real issue, but you must feel guilty about doing nothing.  I guess all the names that you have called people and false accusations that you have made are not harassment!
            
            You are probably going to say, this is from Wikipedia and has no credibility, but try to overcome that.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am … nstitution

            replyreport
            1. 85

               GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I did read the entire article. And more than a few major point source citations.
               
               I found it to be an extremely good article. Well sourced, credited, and written. Probably because the bulk of the article confirms my own opinions.
               
               Which leaves me more than puzzled. Your previous comments argue the ineffectiveness of current gun control laws and seem to imply anything short of a ban would not serve your concerns. What point were you making with this link?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  GA:  Here are my points:
                  
                  1. It confirms my opinions that the amendment was written for another time and circumstance than for today's conditions.
                  
                  2. It confirms my suspicions that it has gone through many iterations since its inception  and that today's supreme court justices can't even agree on a ruling.
                  
                  3. It confirms my belief, that the amendment needs to be reworded so that it is not subject to interpretation as to what is a well regulated militia is or is not in today's world.
                  
                  4.  It needs to have a reference to the article 1, section 8 of the constitution that contains these statements:
                  
                  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
                  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
                  
                  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
                  
                  Article 1, Section 8  can be modified to specify different remedies as conditions in our country change.  Drones are going to become a big part of arms.  How are they going to be handled?  I don't believe they will be managed by a document that was written when muskets were the weapon of choice.
                  
                  GA:  I'm curious, how does that article confirm your own opinions?

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     It confirms my opinions because I apparently read the words to mean something other than you do.
                     
                     ... and on so many points. Even now I am pondering your reasoning, but everything I read in the link contradicts what you write.
                     
                     For instance;
                     "... many iterations? Your link provides the history of only three. And if the article is to be believed, then each successive phrasing was intended to condense and simplify the wording. I thought the article's quotes and historical linkage supported its illustrations of the times.
                     
                     "... supreme court justices can't even agree..." Holy cow, the court history in the article seemed pretty comprehensive to me. Have you seen similar as-credible articles to the contrary?
                     
                     As for the rest...  What the hell... you want to play wordsmith to make sure everyone understands the  comma means this and the colon means that, and... Not me. It needs no revision. It reads correctly and clearly to me.
                     
                     Of course that is only my opinion, (and a bunch of Supreme Court justices and renown constitutional scholars), obviously there are contrary opinions, but I do not think they have much more than emotion and wishful thinking as a foundation.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Change the  mentally challenged or criminal Mind ?
   
   The ever present and  growing frustration of a law abiding public never seems to grasp the reality or   selfish intentions of the criminal mind , nor the FACT that the criminal will never  adhere to a law abiding mentality ,  He cares absolutely NOTHING about the law , the  passing of laws , the legal system , the constitution ,  or the ramifications of the  selfish acts  of either calculated or impulsive acts against others !   Others being YOU and I . 
   
   Just how in the world does the average  law abiding public expect that will change  by instituting one more useless  law against acts perpetrated by the criminal ?    Someone needs to answer for me ,  just how creating a NEW law affects the outcome of any one or more  illegal acts ?   
   
   How would EVEN eliminating the entire second amendment of the constitution -   change the outcome of gun crimes in America ?   When these same gun crimes  are perpetrated by the very same elements of  criminal or mentally challenged  mind  , That cares absolutely NOTHING about the law to begin with ?   
   
   Talk about INSANITY ,   it is simply immature ,  no actually  stupid  ,  to believe that  creating more laws , a more restrictive  environment for  the law abiding community ,   will change the mind  or the acts of the mentally challenged  or  the criminal !

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, and I have never once suggested eliminating the entire 2nd Amendment of the constitution.  Yes, I know, it's easier to argue against an imaginary extreme position.  How about you address the actual position?  You know, directly?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         And just what" Position" is that , that some see a grey area in the extremely plain wording of the second amendment ?

         replyreport
   2. 85

      peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I have never proposed eliminating the 2nd amendment or replacing it with other laws. I will say this one more time.  It's is subject to interpretation and needs to be modified for today's time, so that it will be less ambiguous. It is evident that people in this forum can't even agree with what it says. You keep changing the focus of this forum to it's about the criminal element and how do we solve that problem and if we don't solve it we are not law abiding citizens.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You want to re-write the second amendment , That's obvious ,  Yet you ignore  completely the  influencing elements of the  criminal and the failure to control criminals !    You ignore that the very system that enforces , prosecutes and incarcerates those who misuse the second amendment  is broken and needs fixing as well  .  AND still want the same people in the courts to Change , amend or alter somehow the constitution that protects and serves our very  system  .  Why do you believe that the courts can  change or do what they cannot control to begin with ......crime ?   How does making law abiding people  conform to MORE of the same insanity serve  that which is out of control ?   You are looking at solutions from the wrong end -The top down !  It won't happen  as you seem to think .   
         
         Lets create a new amendment to the second amendment that  cannot even begin to- Control  those who completely  ignore the  law to start with ? That's  Insane !!!!

         replyreport
      2. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Peoplepower , the second amendment HAS been constantly upgraded  ,  the legality  arguments HAVE been constant too , how ?  Because there is a constant flux , a balance in the state and federal equity of the second amendment .  AS in all law  there is flux between federal oversight and state action in all  law itself ,    regulatory gun  law on both levels is constantly tested and re tested in the courts  ,  One can only assume that either  you don't know this OR that you know this and still disagree with the rulings !   Sorry , the second amendment is still , here to stay .

         replyreport
   3. 75

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      ahorseback, assault weapons (made for killing people, not for hunting or protection) were banned during President Clinton's term and the ban was allowed to expire by GWB so that the gun runners/sellers could make more money by selling assault weapons. It has nothing to do with any amendment to the constitution, the law, the criminal, or the mentally ill.
      It is all about the money.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         arms are arms are arms.

         replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Real crime issues , need real crime solutions and I totally understand why many  cannot or will not see this clearly .   Those of who are not connected nor involved in the modern sporting and  gun world , see only one picture and  that is - Its  got to be the Guns fault !   How far from reality will many like these  drift before  you see that stopping the criminal intent in crimes , Is the only solution .
   
   Watching , wanting  and willing more and more laws to be enacted in favor of gun controls when the only results are higher crime rates in inner city areas , repeating the same insanity over and over again  is just wrong , expensive and ineffective .
   
   And , the reason that todays Supreme Court cannot agree on this is obvious , politics and politics alone  !   Liberal vs. conservative  politics keeps this insanity alive ! Not the actual wording of the amendment !

   replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    
    This however , is not a mass killer !

    replyreport
    1. 85

       peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The numbers speak for themselves.  Please scroll down to the bottom to see the details of  310 mass shootings just this year, including the most recent one in Oregon.
       
       http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 
       
       Your argument of stop the criminals and the mass shooting will stop, holds no water.  None of these were known to be criminals until their crimes were committed.  Your argument is pure conjecture.  These are real numbers.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          And your argument of taking away the preferred method of killing will stop the carnage holds even less.  As you say, pure conjecture and one that ignores the facts of history.
          
          So...if we do neither, what's left?

          replyreport
11. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Peoplepower , Honestly ? No Gun owner [who obeys the law] has a real problem with certain  gun laws or restrictions  ,  I could even understand  magazine limits of say eight or ten rounds ,   I have certain ideas that go beyond even that , 21 years of age to own or buy a gun for one .   But it IS without a doubt  foolishness and waste of time and energy to argue with those like yourself who  truly believe that these kinds of limitations will be effective in stopping mass killings !
    
    While   those  like yourself  TOTALLY ignore  the statistics , the modern trends in human behavior and the TOTAL lack of comprehensive mental health care whatsoever , IN America !    What possible  positive  results  can you give  to Obama -Care for the recognition , the diagnosis  and the treatment of an obvious  SURGE in medicated idiots walking the streets today .  Liberals tend to  shout out the benefits of Obama's great  new  strategies for health care for everyone , and yet Mental health Care is STILL non-existent !

    replyreport
    1. 85

       peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know how old you are, but I remember when Reagan defunded mental institutions as a result of stopping big government spending.  There were crazies walking the streets.  I have news for you that funding was never replaced.  The conservative congress does not want to spend money on that because they see it as big government spending and entitlements.  So don't tell me about Obama care and mental health.  The purpose of the GOP congress is to block every move that Obama makes.  How many times have they tried to repeal Obama care? I'll tell you at least  forty times. It costs the tax payers 55 million dollars. That money could have been put to good use to pay for mental health.  How many times have they investigated Benghazi without coming up with anything?  it has cost the taxpayers tens of million of dollars, for what, to defame Hillary.  That money could have been put to good use for the mentally ill.  Here are the statistics for mass shootings and please don't ignore them.  These are cold hard facts, not conjecture.
       
       http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

       replyreport
       1. 75

          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          They may be cold hard facts, but that the killings would not have happened without guns is pure conjecture.  Conjecture NOT supported by any experience anywhere in the world.

          replyreport
          1. 84

             Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Maybe guns have a mystical power with the ability to hold sway   
             … and the more guns, the more sway 
             
             very scary guns, those guns.
             
             
             sway: 3 influence, affect, bias, persuade, win over; manipulate, bend, mold.

             replyreport
12. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    In Plain Language !
    At least Kathryn is in  the right room  when it comes to why this continues ?   Its all in the mind people !.   What causes hate , or the need for empowering oneself ?    But even more to the point is ,why  does someone chose  in their  mind  to actually pick up a tool to destroy another life or lives ?
    
    Is it a fascination with guns , no ! Is it  something inside of us all  perhaps . ?  In our need for answers  all of us look within , do we not , we look within our own minds , hearts and souls for the why's that we will never comprehend  !   And we will never get it because WE are normal , we don't suffer from some twisting within our minds , We , wouldn't do something like this would we ?
    
    But the person who would do this is right there in front of us ,  seething with hate , somehow  broken in the mind , somewhere in their hardwiring is a misconnection ,  and they live like we do too , at least for the interim  , in the basement apartment across the street ,   or in the loft sweat across town , just like you and I ,or  in the campus dorms . I believe that you and I all know who they are ,  yet we collectively turn away  from them , we turn our heads from what we don't , won't , or will not understand .
    
    Mental Illness !     AND, the list is too long at this point , as to who they are and just what is wrong with them  !   The sad part is that  every shrink in the world  can't figure it out either , they can't or won't  point out the bad from the good , the one's who will probably erupt or not ,   they can't because  of the laws too!  What shrink has ever called the authorities to point out the probable  perpetrator of a mass killing ?  You might ask yourself that !     What teacher has ? What parent ?
    
    But we will continue to bang on the drum of  good intentions !    We know the answer don't we ?  Its the gun of course  ?   It's the second amendment entirely  ? It's the entire constitution ,maybe ? It's the style of a or the kind of bullet, isn't it  ?
    
    No I think not !     Its a sickness !   That is what it is .  And we have , just as  we will  continue to turn our heads away from reality !     Mental illness !

    replyreport
13. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    And peoplepower ,    Reagan did  cut funding for mental health ! You're right !
    
    Why? , Maybe he saw something we all didn't ! Maybe he saw halls and halls of people simply locked up against their will .   Maybe he saw  a complete system where those like yourself  simply ignored mental illness AND  quickly and quietly  locked up the perpetrators and threw away the keys , maybe he saw the absolute failure of mankind's answers to human frailties  Mental  illness  is , after all , something for ALL of us to turn our heads away from and simply go on with our collective ignorance's !
    
    So while those like yourself  ,  in times like this ,  point the finger at  "the other party "  you might consider this ,  What have YOU done ?   What did you do the last time you saw someone who  acted a little off the wall ?   Yes .......It's certainly  Ronald Reagans fault that mass killings happen - Jees' Why didn't I think of that !   So  yea , go on blaming Reagan  , go on blaming conservatives , go on .....turning your head the other way !

    replyreport
    1. 85

       peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Maybe, you are using conjecture.  That fact that you said MAYBE, means that you don't really know do you? He did it to cut big government spending. He increased government spending for the super rich and put mentally ill people on the street.  We have never recovered from that.   His mantra was:  “Government is not a solution to our problem. Government is the problem”.
       
       You are turning you head the other way, by saying that if we stop inner city crime, we stop mass shootings committed by the mentally ill.  The two are mutually exclusive.  How would stopping shootings in Chicago stopped the carnage in Oregon?
       
       As Obama said these mass shootings happen about every two months and you gun people keep turning your heads the other way.  It's called passive resistance.  If you ignore the situation long enough, maybe it will go away. That is your tactic. 
       
       Go on keep blaming democrats and a black president that can create tyranny, so that you can justify your weapons of mass destruction...and don't tell me an AR15 is not a weapon of mass destruction.  I'm sure you know you can buy a .50 cal sniper rifle on the open market that has a semi-automatic accuracy of 2,000 meters. Wouldn't you love to shoot one of those, they only costs about 8 grand.  Here is the website. https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Fami … r-Guns.htm

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          People power , I'll make a deal with you , When you control criminals that care nothing about laws , when you create and use  a comprehensive  real mental health care  , when you control the inner city gangs that  make up all the crime stats ! When YOU do these three things , AND nothing changes in the elements of these mass killings ; I will personally deliver all of my guns  to the recycling center of your choice !
          
          Until then carry on with your liberal socialistic  dialog !

          replyreport
          1. 85

             peoplepower73posted 9 years agoin reply to this

             By myself.  I'm not doing anything other than trying to make a point.  But we the people can bring about change when enough people get fed up.  And thanks for giving me permission to carry on my liberal social dialog.  By the way, if you mean socialist as it communist.  I've got news for you.  You are living in the wrong century. That was in the 60's in a cold war with the Soviet Union that no longer exists.  But it what I would expect from you.

             replyreport
14. 69

    Kathleen Cochranposted 9 years ago

    There is no reason why an American shouldn't own a gun.  That's not the issue. 
    
    The second amendment gives you the right to own a musket or a cross-bow.  It doesn't give anyone the right to own a weapon that can kill a dozen people in two seconds.
    
    Other countries have figured this out.  If we can't, why can't we just do what they are doing? 
    
    This is not a problem without a solution.  We just have to decide to accept the solution.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If that is the case, then the first amendment shouldn't apply to ownership of cell phones, cameras, television, and internet.
       
       It is your obligation as an American citizen to turn all of your electronic devices over to your friendly big brother government.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       nicompposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       " It doesn't give anyone the right to own a weapon that can kill a dozen people in two seconds. "
       
       It doesn't deny that right either. The federal government was never granted the right to regulate guns.

       replyreport
15. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Perhaps you  would simply rather that the centralized government  control everything  , that's Everything   that  one feels is out of  your control and  of your  hands .   It's easier to leave the responsibility  of cleaning up the social messes of our inner cities -  our  prescription drugged  misfit children - our  drop outs from the mental wards -   our illegal immigrant controlled  inner city drug gangs -  and our totally useless legal , prosecutorial and penal systems  , to Someone - Anyone else - other than yourselves .
    
    The problem is , is that you see the simplistic answer as to alter the original constitution of the US rather than  alter  the free range behavior of todays  extremely free willed   society , What we need is Impulse control  and not  constitutional control  .

    replyreport
16. 51

    Max Harmonposted 9 years ago

    I think we can all tell that when guns are forbidden by the government, then only the criminals have them.  The right to bear arms was for a common defense against tyranny.  Your premise that the second amendment causes violent people to shoot each other is flawed.

    replyreport
17. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    You are all looking for black and white -simplistic answers ,   That is the extent of a o lot of  minds , while many realize that this is a multi-faceted  problem .    Thereby requiring multi- faceted  resolutions . And even with the  many fronts required of the war on mass killings - They will STILL happen !
    
    New York state went through years of high crime rates , instituted a major , probably illegal as to the constitution , hand gun ban .     Did it help their crime rates . No.       Only after Mayor Giuliani  revamped they way gun crimes were prosecuted - did things change -IN NYC .   Slapping the wrists of gun criminals or ANY criminals is tantamount  to doing absolutely NOTHING .  Which ,by the way, is what happens everywhere !

    replyreport
18. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    You know Its long past time that the left stop throwing racism into  every argument that  they're ultimately losing !   Why don't we  really discuss  meaningful , honest and  permanent solutions .

    replyreport
19. 68

    Justin Franklinposted 9 years ago

    Which world would you rather live in, a world where guns are illegal for everyone, including the police and military, or a world where everyone can get a gun so easily that mcdonalds gives them to children in their happy meals.

    replyreport
20. 60

    tjlajoieposted 9 years ago

    Outlaw or strictly regulate gun ownership?  There is no legitimacy to a process that seeks to use the legislature to deny a citizen a right he would never lose in court--i.e. the right to bear arms. In the arena of politics, however, we apparently don't need to present evidence that meets the "burden of production" required in court to justify taking someone's guns.  Apparently you do not need any evidence to meet the "burden of persuasion" or "burden of proof" required in court, either.  Heck, you do not even need to overcome reasonable doubt. You simply need to convince individual legislators that they can determine an individual's guilt on the basis of behavior committed by someone else or the subjective opinion of what someone thinks they might do if they own a gun. Shame on our elected officials who fall for it and citizens who are duped by this reasoning.  I own several guns.  None of them are a threat to anyone who is not trying to harm innocent people.

    replyreport
21. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    So I tried Googling"  How Many Gun Laws In the USA" .,  Because of politically  motivated  answers and agenda's  ,what I get is anywhere between  22  and  22 ,000,  so we all know there are more than likely , hundreds ? That's State , federal  , local ?
    
    The  naiveté of assuming  one or a hundred   laws  are going to be obeyed by THOSE THAT DO NOT OBEY LAW , to begin with , is insanity !
    
    So someone , who is for more or for changing the  laws ,   please answer this for me ?
    
    HOW DO YOU MAKE A CRIMINAL OBEY LAW ?

    replyreport
22. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

    After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since
    
    "At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
    
    What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since."
    
    So, given this evidence that strict gun control (not banning of guns, just strict control) results in saving lives, how can you sleep at night knowing your opposition to strict gun control is contributing to the death of innocents just because you want to own more guns without having to comply with regulations that are no more strict than those for owning an automobile?  HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?

    replyreport
    1. 75

       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Let's see.  The Aussies removed 600,000 guns from the country.  They also implemented other actions in the fight over an 11 year time span.  The Homicide rate (after a small blip) continued the slide it was already on in 1995, and by 2006 was down considerably.
       
       And you wish to attribute that continual slide over a decade to removing the guns in 1995.  PP, that doesn't even make sense - if gun control was the cause it should have happened in the year after those guns were confiscated, not spread over 10 years with no real change in the rate of decline.
       
       Robberies - robberies with a gun dropped, but I don't see anything about the robbery rate in general, unless "home invasion" means robbery (and was unchanged).  Because it did not go down and thus taking guns did nothing at all?
       
       The mass shootings is interesting, though, and is likely to be at least partially caused by removal of guns.  The question then becomes "Is the saving of 2-3 lives per year worth the loss of freedom from taking guns?"  And no, the answer is not an automatic "YES" unless it is coming from someone hating guns - if it were we would still have a 55 MPH speed limit here and much tougher driving laws.  We're talking, after all, about fewer lives than die in skiing accidents, ladder falls, drownings or a host of other things we allow.  While disturbing the rights of 600,000 people to own the gun they want.
       
       *edit* An interesting read on the results of gun control in Australia and UK:
       http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 … 0446855466

       replyreport
       1. 70

          wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          
          I have already made it clear that I do not advocate gun control. However, I am fascinated by your comment:  "...The question then becomes "Is the saving of 2-3 lives per year worth the loss of freedom from taking guns?"
          
          Your position is clarified when you say,"  ..." We're talking, after all, about fewer lives than die in skiing accidents, ladder falls, drownings or a host of other things we allow.  While disturbing the rights of 600,000 people to own the gun they want..."
          
          I do not live in the Imaginary World of Men, although it may appear to be so. I am sure that this response will be way over the head of my subordinates, but I am bound to respond. The superior man understands that the life of only "one" man,woman, or child, is not only worth disturbing the rights of 600,000 people. But that "one" life is worth disturbing the rights of 600 "million". And if any of you gun lovers disagree, then I must ask: "If that "one" man, woman, or child was someone you dearly love: your father,mother,or son or daughter, would you be willing to sacrifice that "one" life so that 600 million people could continue to play with their guns?  After all, it is only one.

          replyreport
          1. 75

             wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Then sit in your bed and do not move.  Because anything you do might cost a life somehow.  And even then the coroner may die when he comes to collect the body.
             
             A guarantee that the one life will be taken? (Probably not).  A very faint chance that it will?  Yes, of course.  Isn't that the definition of freedom?  Allow others to do as they wish as long as it gives only a very low probability of harm to you?
             
             Things like driving a car, but not driving drunk (too high a probability).  Or owning a gun, but not discharging in the city.  Or flying a plane, but only with rigid restrictions on maintenance and adequate training.  Or having a propane tank, but again only if it is constructed just so.  Lots and lots and LOTS of things we do that might cause harm, but we allow it anyway.  It's just that guns scare some people and they don't care that someone else wants one so it has to go even though we know it won't help either the fear or the death toll.
             
             So no, no one is willing to give up everything; they have decided that some lives are worth their needs and wants.  Got electricity in your home?  People die every year bringing that to you...

             replyreport
             1. 70

                wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                But you still did not answer the question. Why?
                And No! An untimely death is not my definition of freedom.

                replyreport
                1. 75

                   wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Sorry, there was no "why" in your question, so I did not answer it directly.  However, you should be able to find that "why" in the response I wrote.
                   
                   Is total control of the lives of others then your definition of freedom?  That's what it will take, of course, to virtually guarantee you won't find an untimely death at the hands of others.  That or live as a hermit in Antarctica.

                   replyreport
                   1. 70

                      wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      Of course there was.  Your strawman couldn't save your argument and so now denial is your weapon of choice.

                      replyreport
23. 80

    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    Bill Whittle's fact filled video titled "NUMBER ONE WITH A BULLET" blows the BS about gun control out of the water globally. It blows gun laws out of the water here in America. 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz … e=youtu.be
    
    He said it took him about a half hour to research the facts.  So! It should not take anyone else much longer to confirm the facts. 
    
    The United States is 111 on the list of the countries with the most crime because American citizens are allowed to have guns.  Its cities like Detroit and Chicago, etc.  with strict gun laws that have the highest crime rates.

    replyreport
24. 80

    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    If I Google say "crimes not being reported in the UK" I see that all crimes are not being reported by the police in the UK. 
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30081682
    
    If I talk to trusted long time friends in the UK, I hear the same thing.

    replyreport
25. 80

    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    Evidently, Mia Higginbotham said, "They basically told me I'm one step below a murderer in the eyes of the New Jersey court."
    
    She bought a fire-arm for self protection in New Jersey. When she was moving to Florida with her legally owned hand gun she was charge with possession of an illegal hand gun she legally owned, a second degree felony in NJ.
    
    She was arrested and taken to jail...GET THIS...and her bail was set at $50,000. 
    
    A way for the courts to earn money illegally by the law? 
    
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015093 … ntrol-trap

    replyreport
    1. 80

       colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Don't vote for Gov. Chris Christy of New Jersey then.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Don't forget , New Jersey is an out of control state relating to crime , organized and not !  It's no mans land down there still !

          replyreport
26. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    "The second amendment  is outdated  " , ----- The second amendment is the  most  simply worded , un-confusing , singularly the  clearest of ALL constitutional rights awarded to mankind !   At least in reality ! That is to say  ,  of those of us who follow reality !
    
    That is exactly why  that the increasingly  attempted  alterations of the amendment itself  are constantly  repealed by the supreme  court ! Thank goodness for that .   Why , because there is no simpler set of wording than the basic---- twenty seven words--- of that amendment !
    
    The mass frustrations of the leftist  mentality is overflowing  with childish  anger , Why ?  Because of the simplest wording  in the English language !   My suggestion  , get over it ---- hey I know  have your pseudo- socialist president  commit one more executive action  , to be later  repealed by a real president !

    replyreport
27. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    Everyone needs to take a deep breath and remember , look it up if you have to . The United States is a nation where the rule of law- IS- the constitution of said United States ! Every politician  , every soldier , every cop , every judge , takes an oath of allegiance to it .  This constitution !   Including the second amendment !
    Sorry - it aint changin' !

    replyreport
28. 73

    Aime Fposted 9 years ago

    "And if any of you gun lovers disagree, then I must ask: "If that "one" man, woman, or child was someone you dearly love: your father,mother,or son or daughter, would you be willing to sacrifice that "one" life so that 600 million people could continue to play with their guns?  After all, it is only one."
    
    Agree completely.  Plus I think (okay,
    I know) we're talking about a lot more than 2-3 lives per year when we're talking about mass shootings in the U.S.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It would be easier to defend ourselves from bad guys if we simply avoid gun free zones. Like Chicago.

       replyreport
    2. 75

       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Presuming you're replying to me, we're also talking about a lot more needless deaths from other causes that we allow because we want them.  Things like high speed limits, or alcohol.  Would you be willing to give up your car forever to possibly save a few lives per year?  And all the other cars in the country?

       replyreport
       1. 73

          Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          When you get into a car you take responsibility for being aware and keeping an eye out for potentially dangerous things around you.  You can't always predict them but you at least have the advantage of knowing you should be on the lookout for them.  Why should people have to be thinking that someone might walk into school with a gun and shoot them to death while they're sitting in class?
          
          Not to mention cars are necessary for a lot of people to get to work, to travel to see their family, to get groceries, etc.  Unless you hunt your own food I don't see how the necessity for guns is even remotely comparable. 
          
          For what it's worth I actually never drive.  Not because of the potential danger but because I can walk 99% of the places I need to go.  But I'm not defending cars because I wouldn't want to give mine up, I could part with it pretty damn easily (my husband, not so much...).

          replyreport
          1. 70

             wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Of course there is no comparison. He has simply presented a strawman because  he cannot answer the question I posed without contradicting his original argument. My question as you recall only required a yes or no answer.

             replyreport
             1. 75

                wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Of course!  Only some people want guns; it's fine if others take them away because they're afraid of them.  But it's not so fine when speed limits are set to 40 MPH, is it?  Because you don't like that one.
                
                But hey, if it might (and experience says it will, unlike saving lives if guns are taken) isn't it worth it? 
                
                And what question?

                replyreport
          2. 75

             wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Why should people be afraid someone is driving too fast and will kill them?  Is there really a difference?
             
             OK - you don't like cars, either.  How about giving up all your kitchen knives because some people will kill with knives?  (Particularly if you take their guns away!)

             replyreport
             1. 73

                Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Hey, if I lived in a country where there were 300+ mass stabbings a year then sure, take the stupid knives.

                replyreport
                1. 75

                   wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Good answer.  Not truthful, but it sounds good!  The next one is baseball bats - they are seeing more and more use in Canada since guns were taken.

                   replyreport
                   1. 73

                      Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      It is truthful, I assure you I am not particularly attached to my knives nor do I feel my right to easily cut cheese trumps numerous people being frequently and easily (hypothetically) stabbed to death at a movie theatre or a school.  Especially if other nations had banned kitchen knives and almost entirely stopped seeing mass stabbings.
                      
                      As soon as there are 300+ mass baseball bat beatings per year, then sure, take 'em!  Same with any other weapon that doesn't really serve any necessary purpose but allows unstable people to randomly kill large amounts of people on a regular basis.

                      replyreport
                      1. 70

                         wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         
                         
                         Many people won't believe you because they have become addicted to materialism and accustomed to selfish behavior. That's why the concept of communism scares many Americans. Many will point to countries such as the Soviet Union as failures. But what they don't realize is that the Soviet Union was also a capitalist country. In Raya Dunayevskaya's 1941 essay, "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society  ", we read the conclusion: "...State capitalism, it is true, but capitalism nevertheless."
                         In other words, a small group representing the "state" sat at the top of the pyramid and controlled the means of production; a smaller, more concentrated ruling elite than here in the United States. Capitalist enterprise which perpetuates materialistic values in this society is the root cause of many of our problems.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            Communism is not a bad idea. If anything, it is a more extreme form of democracy than we've seen so far. However, the way it's been implemented so far leaves much to be desired.

                            replyreport
                      2. 75

                         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         No knives.  Can't open boxes.  Can't cut an apple or carrot.  Can't cut paper (scissors are a knife, too) to wrap presents.  Can't slice potatoes.  Can't lay carpet or tile.  Can't dig out a splinter from your finger.  No more meat - it is all cut with knives.  No more sheetrock in your house - just the old plastered walls (at triple the cost). 
                         
                         But do away with anything that can murder?  You mean fertilizer and diesel fuel (goes boom!).  Or Bleach and ammonia (makes deadly Chlorine gas).  And ice picks (has been used in movie theaters).
                         
                         Truth is that nearly everything we use can be used to kill with.  Even the rocks in your driveway.  You might want to re-think the idea of doing away with anything that kills, even just things that can kill many at a time.

                         replyreport
                         1. 73

                            Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            I think we're getting a bit ridiculous now.  I think it's worth pointing out that I never said no one in the world should ever be allowed to have guns.  All I'm saying is make it harder.  Be more responsible about screening.  Make people wait a month.  Limit the types of guns people can buy.  Guns still exist in Canada and Australia, people still own them after jumping through a few more hoops and not getting firearms when they want where they want with minimal effort.  And each country has less than 5 mass shootings over the past 20 years.  You guys average that in a week.  Sure, there's no guarantee it will happen the same way.  But it's getting frustrating watching you guys not even trying to make any changes.  I guess I should just shut up and thank my mom for giving birth to me in a country that saw one horrible mass shooting and said "nope, not okay, let's try to fix this." 
                            
                            Enjoy your guns, guys.  I hope at the very least no more children have to die because you didn't want to wait a month to get your gun or take a test or not get the exact type of gun you wanted or whatever it is that's so horrible about stricter gun control.

                            replyreport
                            1. 75

                               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               OK - shall we expand those same to things that kill but we like?  Knives, bats, gasoline or diesel, fertilizer, etc?  Or just to things that lots of people are afraid of and have enough political clout to ban?
                               
                               Darn right it's frustrating.  The US has a major problem with violence and we take the same failed action over and over and over.  Banning guns doesn't change a thing, doesn't save lives but DOES limit freedom.  And we continue to do it, knowing it won't help!  While refusing to admit that it just might be our culture, or fascination with violence, all along.  Darn right it's frustrating.
                               
                               And the final paragraph is sooo typical!  An emotional cry that someone will die if we don't take away more guns...because there is nothing else to present?  Just an effort to raise emotions to the point people will react without thinking, without reasoning, without anything but fear to limit rights of other people?

                               replyreport
                               1. 79

                                  Misfit Chickposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                  Way to cut to the heart of the matter - well said.

                                  replyreport
                               2. 73

                                  Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                  That's what it comes down to though, isn't it?  You're not implementing stricter gun control because you don't want to mess with people's freedom to buy weapons as easily as they do now.  Again, you are still free to buy guns.  It's just not as easy.  What is so horrible about that that it's not even worth trying to see if it results in less people getting shot to death at school?

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 79

                                     Misfit Chickposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                     Read the post from Kathryn L Hill above about their experience with passing a law like this is Jamaica... Criminals being able to still EASILY get their hands on guns; and making it harder and/or illegal for good people to have them doesn't work. And we don't want our freedoms diminished on this one issue if it doesn't work... which, we already know here that it doesn't. Like the above comment made... we keep going stuff that we already know does not work.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 79

                                        Misfit Chickposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        And probably more importantly... many people don't show up 'as criminals' until the shooting starts. How many times have you heard, "He seemed like such a nice, quiet young man"?

                                        report
                                        1. 73

                                           Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                           It's not just checking for a criminal record.  Mental health comes into the screening.  A good portion of the mass shooters have been on some type of psychiatric drug.

                                           report
                                     2. 73

                                        Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        But it DID work in several places (Canada, the U.K., Australia, Japan, etc.).  So why do you look at one example that doesn't work, say "see, it's not going to work!" and then ignore the other examples where it did?
                                        
                                        Never mind, I already know the answer!  Because you don't want to try a little harder and wait a little longer to get your guns.

                                        report
                                        1. 75

                                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                           Really?  Not according the numbers - not a single nation has ever seen a reduction in their homicide rate by implementing tough gun laws.  Not Canada, not Australia - nowhere does anything but gun homicides go down, leaving just as many dead, just from other tools.  Or can you produce facts and figures showing the opposite?
                                           
                                           http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
                                           
                                           Pay particular attention to the second graph, which shows absolutely no change in the rate of fall of homicides before or after the Australian gun buy back.  And you can't get any more restrictive than taking them away.

                                           report
                                           1. 73

                                              Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                              I'm talking about mass shootings specifically.  I also posted something about needing to do multivariate studies to see accurate figures regarding homicide before and after gun control legislation but of course that went ignored. 
                                              
                                              I'll just line up beside PrettyPanther and enthusiastically yell "MOAR GUNS!  PEW PEW!!!" because god forbid anyone try to make it harder for you to get your hands on your precious weaponry that can and does kill a stupid amount of people in the matter of seconds ON A REGULAR BASIS!  Even if it didn't help with homicides in general.  Even if all it did was eliminate a very large portion of mass shootings (which it's been shown to do in every developed nation that's implemented gun control).  That's not enough for you?  How freaking depressing is that.
                                              
                                              I think I'm about done here.  This isn't even my country I'm talking about and I'm getting increasingly frustrated.  I think I'm at the point where it's just not worth it anymore.
                                              
                                              I sincerely hope that this stuff stops happening, whether it's because of gun control or not.  I hope you find some way to make it better.  We may disagree whole-heartedly on this subject but I'm sure everyone is equally as horrified that this keeps happening.

                                              report
                                              1. 84

                                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                 One word: pharmaceuticals.

                                                 report
                                              2. 0

                                                 PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                 Let's do nothing to stop mass shootings, because it might require gun owners to, you know, put out some effort to own a gun.  It might require, GASP!, registration!  It might require, GASP!, a limit on the number of guns.  Oh, the horror of regulations so onerous that even 274 mass shootings in the past year is not enough to warrant any change of all.
                                                 
                                                 Let's just keep the status quo, because "FREEDOM!"
                                                 
                                                 And they accuse us of being emotional.  I think they're a bunch of big, crying babies. Notice that not a single one has addressed the common sense question of how will the police know who is the bad guy in a mass shooting if someone fights back with a gun.  Notice how not a one has commented on the real-life example of a trained combat veteran choosing not to engage for that very reason.

                                                 report
                                     3. 70

                                        wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        
                                        
                                        Crime and violence do not materialize out of thin air. It is a corrupt capitalist system that has addicted the world to materialism which continues to breed the violence. The gun issue is only a symptom of a much larger problem. You will notice that in affluent communities all over the world you will not see the level of violence you are talking about in Jamaica.
                                        
                                        It has nothing to do with the fact that these communities may havec better police coverage. Nor does it mean they are all carrying weapons. It simply means that people with money aren't as angry. They are not as frustrated, and they are not as desperate. In a world that promotes materialism, a person who can afford to satisfy his lust for material things is relatively happy, and not prone to violence. Anyone who says money can't make you happy has never lived on the streets, or had to sell their body, or sell drugs to survive. They have never had to eat out     of garbage cans, or watch their children wearing dirty rags playing in a filthy street.
                                        
                                        Capitalism as practiced today cannot exist without the very poor. The rich could not be rich if everyone was equal. As long as the status quo is allowed to continue there will be no significant change. The ruling elite  are the enemy of the people; not the thugs in the street; not the mass murderers; not the Muslims; not the North Koreans.

                                        report
                                        1. 84

                                           Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                           No. it is the rich who MADE their money and created their wealth.  The rich made wise investments and diligently worked day in day out, slowly, carefully building their wealth.
                                           
                                                The rich who become blindly ambitious and greedy are the culprits.
                                           Capitalism is not the problem. human nature is.
                                           
                                           sorry wB.

                                           report
                                           1. 70

                                              wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                              
                                              
                                              Here is what a lot of people miss: Even those who are not greedy. Even those who are otherwise good people are still perpetuating evil by participating in the system. They allow the system to continue and flourish. As a result, people continue to suffer. People they will never see because they are insulated by wealth and privilege.
                                              
                                              Here is a good example: Human Trafficking In the CHOCOLATE INDUSTRY
                                              http://kndashy41.hubpages.com/hub/Sweat … -Notice-It

                                              report
                                              1. 84

                                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                 I noticed you said "Your country."
                                                 yet here you are.

                                                 report
                                                 1. 70

                                                    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                    If you are suggesting that I am an American you are sorely mistaken.  I am not caught up in all of these illusions Kathryn. The United States, America, Iowa, Arizona, California: These are all imaginary places. Just as you might say that this is an apple and that is a tree, your words do not leave a mark on either one. You call a dog a dog , but you must ask yourself: What does the dog call you? And if he has given you a name, does that become your "real" name?  A man can name and claim anything he likes, but in doing so he only creates a shallow truth that exists only in his imagination. I do not live in the imaginary world of men. Men have no authority over me; except the authority of a kidnapper, a robber,or a thief. I live in a world that has been overrun by devils. That is the name of my country.

                                                    report
                                        2. 79

                                           Misfit Chickposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                           That is a very good point. Various areas of our culture (I wouldn't just blame capitalism) contribute to the attitudes and dysfunctional lives that surround us. We Americans really are quite the self-involved, spoiled-rotten, righteous bunch, ha! I can certainly see why richer countries have less crime - why would you need to kill anyone if you are relatively happy?

                                           report
                                     4. 86

                                        Au faitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        My reply is primarily for WrenchBiscuit.  Well said.  I don't always agree with you, but more often than not, I do.  I definitely second what you say here.

                                        report
                                        1. 70

                                           wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                           Thank You Au Fait! I'm curious about the meaning of your name. I assume it is French.

                                           report
                                  2. 84

                                     Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                     who does that? the mentally ill.
                                     there is your problem.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 61

                                        janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        What do you expect? Their is nowhere to go for the mentally ill. They refuse to do anything about them. They turn even the floridly psychotic away at the door.

                                        report
                                     2. 73

                                        Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                        Yeah, but you definitely wouldn't want to implement screening to try to weed out at least some mentally ill people getting their hands on guns.  Because freedom!

                                        report
                                  3. 75

                                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                     Until you can show that a greater good (and good deal "greater") can be expected it is not reasonable to restrict anything, let alone second amendment rights. 
                                     
                                     Can you do that?  So far we've tried and tried the same tired game (restriction of rights to buy/own guns) without a single tiny indication it's working (and in fact it appears in the US to do the opposite, with locales with the toughest gun restrictions also having the highest murder rates).  Other countries have done the same.  So...can you show a reasonable expectation that the death toll will fall given further restrictions?  Or is there some other reason to reduce gun ownership outside of saving lives?

                                     replyreport
                         2. 84

                            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            Arms are meant for good not bad.
                            For protection and sport. We need to end of the abuse of guns, not the right use of guns.
                            What if you come across a bear, bobcat or rattler while hiking with your dogs and kids on a mountain trail?
                            What if you enjoy target practice and enjoy gun shows and competitions??
                            What if your kids enjoy their bb guns and like target practice at the local gun range or up in the mountains?

                            replyreport
                            1. 75

                               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               No, we don't particularly need to end the abuse of guns; we need to end the propensity to harm others.  Do that and there will be no abuse of guns, knives, bombs or any of the other 1,000 tools of murder.  And until you do it, guns, knives, bombs and all the others will continue to be abused despite your every effort.

                               replyreport
29. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    And what about violent video games? Oh, those are fine!
    Right?
    
    "The APA says that there’s no single factor that can drive someone toward violence or aggression, but that violent video games could be classified as one risk factor. The agency is calling upon the video game industry to increase parental controls over violence exposure in the games."
    
    http://time.com/4000220/violent-video-games/
    
    "Anderson and Bushman theorized that excessive exposure to violent video games causes the formation of aggressive beliefs and attitudes, while also desensitizing gamers to violent behaviors."
    
    http://www.video-game-addiction.org/violence.html

    replyreport
30. 70

    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    Interesting. It makes me wonder. I have yet to hear of an argument in an online Forum leading to murder. If not already, I am sure it is bound to happen,

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Young kids absorb what they experience. The younger they are exposed to this wonderful uplifting violence the more it becomes part of their psyche. Im sorry, take away the right to bear arms, but let our young children get entrenched with violence and aggression … ?
       
       Instead, lets take away a contributing influence toward aggression so we can continue to have the right to bear arms.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Shyron E Shenkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Who is talking about taking away guns that are for protection or hunting?
          The 2nd amendment was written December 15, 1791 and the first ASSAULT/HUMAN KILLING RIFEL was made in1918.
          I don't think the framers of the constitution knew about assault weapons.

          replyreport
          1. 84

             Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             I actually agree.  They should have been kept illegal.
             http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimed … d-baddest/

             replyreport
31. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    What's wrong with the right to bear arms, again?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know what I would do without my arms! What would my hands be attached to? =X

       replyreport
       1. 70

          wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          If were going down that road: Bearing arms could be considered a capital offense if the arms you are bearing belong to someone else.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Are you accusing me of stealing someone else's arms and surgically attaching those arms to my own body? I'm not that barbaric.

             replyreport
    2. 84

       Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       this is what's wrong:
       http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/ma … html#title
       
       Good to know.

       replyreport
       1. 70

          wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          
          
          O.K. Kathryn,  I followed the link. To summarize:
          
          • 53% of Mass Killings are family related
          • A breakup is the trigger behind 1 in 4 mass killings
          • The majority killed by gunshot
          • Nobody killed with a baseball bat
          • 3 out of 4 guns were hand guns ( Hunters don't normally use hand guns, and so
          that kills the "They're gonna make me stop killing Bambi and other helpless
          little animals" argument.)
          • 94% of mass killers are male

          replyreport
          1. 84

             Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Yes, and they grab the gun which is closest at hand.
             Usually it is the mentally ill and they end up killing themselves.
             Did you see those crazy faces?

             replyreport
             1. 0

                thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Mental illness is a factor. The gun enables them to commit the act. Many studies show if the gun was not there during these trigger scenarios (suicide being the prime example), the person probably would not have killed anyone. The presence of an accessible gun helps create the possibility in the mind of the perpetrator. The possibility can quickly turn into a reality.

                replyreport
32. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    It is impossible to get rid of arms so we might as well work on making the world a better place.
    That is the real issue. How can we do that?
    Lets become so civilized that we no longer need protection from other HUMANS!
    Take good care of our children, our mentally ill, our distraught, our poor and each other.
    Easier said than done?
    
    probably.
    So eliminate the arms. All of them.
    You never know who will get their grimy hands on one.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It's not either or! We should do it all

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yes we should…
          In Utopia.
          Which John Lennon spoke of.
             
          
          "Imagine"
          
          Imagine there's no heaven
          It's easy if you try
          No hell below us
          Above us only sky
          Imagine all the people
          Living for today...
          
          Imagine there's no countries
          It isn't hard to do
          Nothing to kill or die for
          And no religion too
          Imagine all the people
          Living life in peace...
          
          You may say I'm a dreamer
          But I'm not the only one
          I hope someday you'll join us
          And the world will be as one
          
          Imagine no possessions
          I wonder if you can
          No need for greed or hunger
          A brotherhood of man
          Imagine all the people
          Sharing all the world...
          
          You may say I'm a dreamer
          But I'm not the only one
          I hope someday you'll join us
          And the world will live as one

          replyreport
          1. 0

             thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Based on your previous post, I need some clarity. Are you agreeing with John Lennon, or mocking such ideals as only dreams?

             replyreport
             1. 84

                Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                What would be your best guess?

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   I think you believe in the ideals, but taking away people's guns aren't going to get us anywhere

                   replyreport
                   1. 84

                      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      I ditched first period because I had to hear this song on the radio, when it first came out, in my friends car. I was mesmerized.
                      But now I know this can never be. We have to face reality and act accordingly.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         I agree! Utopia is not possible. I think its worth trying to move us closer to it though than farther from it.

                         replyreport
33. 70

    wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years ago

    
    
    John Lennon was smarter than many of his peers.He had the right imagination. His death was a real kick in the head. Here's another kick in the head. When I was a kid I saw Moses part the Red Sea. After I grew up he became a spokesman for the NRA. Go figure.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I have a kleenex over this… A tear I shed!

       replyreport
34. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle, first developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov. It is officially known as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Ðвтомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash. Design work on the AK-47 began in the last year of World War II (1945). After the war in 1946, the AK-46 was presented for official military trials. In 1948 the fixed-stock version was introduced into active service with selected units of the Soviet Army. An early development of the design was the AKS (S—Skladnoy or "folding"), which was equipped with an underfolding metal shoulder stock. In 1949, the AK-47 was officially accepted by the Soviet Armed Forces and used by the majority of the member states of the Warsaw Pact. The weapon was supplied to Nicaraguan Sandinistas, Viet Cong as well as Middle Eastern and Asian revolutionaries. More recently they have been seen in the hands of Islamic groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. The original AK-47 was one of the first assault rifles of 2nd generation, after the German StG 44.[11] Even after six decades the model and its variants remain the most widely used and popular assault rifles in the world because of their durability, low production cost, availability, and ease of use. It has been manufactured in many countries and has seen service with armed forces as well as irregular forces worldwide. The AK-47 was the basis for developing many other types of individual and crew-served firearms. More AK-type rifles have been produced than all other assault rifles combined.
    
    I kind of want one now. I've just got to keep it out of the hands of my crazy uncle!

    replyreport
    1. 70

       wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Great! You can get yourself a sexy black outfight and some spurs to go with it. Voted Up!

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Got some pics?

          replyreport
          1. 70

             wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Just imagine holding the assault rifle in these outfits.
             
             
             
             
             

             replyreport
             1. 0

                thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Pic #2 looks fake.

                replyreport
                1. 70

                   wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Yes, it does. I wonder how it feels.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      Ask her back.

                      replyreport
                      1. 70

                         wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         A+

                         replyreport
                2. 84

                   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   I was thinking Russian WWII style.  Black leather, high topped boots.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      Not very American. Better watch out, we got some die hard patriots following this thread.

                      replyreport
                      1. 84

                         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                         https://www.google.com/search?q=wwIi+Ru … p;bih=1002
                         
                         Repeating:
                           It is officially known as Avtomat Kalashnikova (Russian: Ðвтомат Калашникова). It is also known as Kalashnikov, AK, or in Russian slang, Kalash. Design work on the AK-47 began in the last year of World War II (1945). After the war in 1946, the AK-46 was presented for official military trials. In 1948 the fixed-stock version was introduced into active service with selected units of the Soviet Army. An early development of the design was the AKS (S—Skladnoy or "folding"), which was equipped with an underfolding metal shoulder stock. In 1949, the AK-47 was officially accepted by the Soviet Armed Forces and used by the majority of the member states of the Warsaw Pact.
                         
                         Fine. I will carry my Kalash while wearing my grandfathers green WWI (Don't have a WWII) long army jacket
                         … only.
                         

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            BiglongChewbacaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                            I notice you are very keen on details. The green jacket with the high topped boots is a good choice.

                            replyreport
                            1. 84

                               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               oh, good grief! what have I done now!?

                               replyreport
                            2. 0

                               thegeckoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                               Welcome to OK Cupid!

                               replyreport
35. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    So , Gun Laws  bottom line ,  Since the beginning of America , our elected leaders must have collectively wondered and wonder still . WHY  writing one more  law into affect changes absolutely Nothing ?   Ever wonder about that ?     Ever wonder how an issue can travel through history  and  be altered , amended  ,re- written dozens perhaps hundreds of times  ,.........and in effect change nothing !
    
    I offer you this , criminal elements don't read law books , mental  patients  don't read law books ,   I doubt  even some  lawyers or judges really read law books !     Certainly you might wonder  how something like crime  can be controlled , how mental health ,something affecting someone each of us   knows ,  can be controlled . Why ?   
    
    Because they cannot be controlled !    When the human element is involved , anything can and will happen .  All the more frustrating for each of us when  we witness mass killings ,   when our neighbor , our  brother or sister , when our  friend sits on he edge of the ledge of lawlessness our mental  problems and we can do Nothing !
    
    Perhaps the human mind , fortunately in most issues  , will be the last thing to be controlled yet  cannot be controlled !  When it finally can  ;  Are we then not - all in trouble !

    replyreport
36. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

    I give up.  Let's arm all teachers.  Heck, let's arm all college students over the age of 18.  Oh, and let's not forget the workplace.  Let's make sure as many people carry as possible.  After all, the more armed we are, the safer for everyone.
    
    The police and the populace will all have guns.  I'm sure the police will know who are the good guys when they respond to a shootout, right?
    
    Vet with concealed weapon explains why he didn't shoot in Umpqua

    replyreport
37. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

    Please use this handy guide, so you can tell the difference between an armed good guy and an armed bad guy.  Remember, the more armed good guys we have around us, the safer we will all be. 
    

    replyreport
38. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

    You've all convinced me that we will be safer if we continue to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights to the fullest extent.  Let's embrace our freedom and carry out in the open.  That will stop these crazy mass shootings.
    
    

    replyreport
39. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

    Who wants to ban guns?  Regulating is not banning, for the umpteenth time.
    
    Oh, and remember, you've done persuaded this old gal.  I'm recruitin' all my neighbors to not only get themselves a gun, but to strap it on and walk around with it so the bad guys know not to mess with us!  My neighbors include the veteran with PTSD who already owns an arsenal (I feel so safe with him two doors down from me), a retired bookstore owner who can barely see (she needs a gun FOR SURE, because she is an easy target), the young couple with a two-year-old and a chihuahua (they need extra protection, because of the young 'un).  Oh, and let's not forget the raging alcoholic on disability.  Oh, I forgot, he just killed himself with one of 6 guns they found in his home.  Just three weeks before the Umpqua Community College shooting that was just 15 miles from here.
    
    Damn, we better hurry up and get armed!  So much death that could've been avoided if we'd all been strappin'!

    replyreport
40. 80

    colorfuloneposted 9 years ago

    I wonder if people who support Obama and his agenda for gun laws have ever read his book "Audacity of Hope".  If you haven't I suggest picking it up from a local library and see for yourself the hatred he made public.  Don't buy it! 
    
    The scariest thing Obama wrote is, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an
    ugly direction."

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, I read it the entire book, but I sincerely doubt that you did. 
       
       Edited to add:  Are you packin' yet?  Openly, I hope.  I'm advocating for everyone to do so, for the good of the country, of course.  We must not let the bad guys have the upper hand.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       colorfulone ~ Taken out of context of course ~
       
       But just think, you've inadvertently disproved the insane republican mantra that President Obama is a Muslim because if he were of that particular faith, he'd already be "STANDING with THEM" right?
       
       The President STANDS with EVERYONE as he/she should, with the excepton of extremists of course ~

       replyreport
       1. 80

          colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I would expect nothing less of a reply like that from you. 
          
          You didn't read the book. 
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 0

             PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
             
             Did you read the book and decide to only mention the part that suits your politics?  Or, did you take someone else's word about the intent and accuracy of the quote, without checking first?   Just wondering.

             replyreport
          2. 0

             PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley was in the march, as was assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.
             
             I suppose one could say they are not "leaders," but the U.S. was represented at the march.

             replyreport
             1. 80

                colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                While Obama went golfing? 
                
                That's ok, he had something very important to do. 
                
                Good of an excuse as any.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Actually, he was at the White House that day.  I'm glad you are privy to whether or not he had something important to do.  You must be quite important yourself to have such knowledge.

                   replyreport
                2. 61

                   janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Do you expect the president to work 24/7? Does he not have the right to rest and relaxation?

                   replyreport
       2. 67

          Doug Cutlerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          The  choice weapon of the average Muslim seems to be a sharp knife or sword.
          Kind of hard to behead with a gun.

          replyreport
    3. 80

       colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." - Obama
       
       Islam is "political". 
       
       Obama Department of Justice?  lol 
       http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/133172? … ost2769419
       
       DOJ, our new Department Of Jihadist

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Even after given the correct quote, you continue to misquote?  Okay. 

          replyreport
41. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Capitalism / Arms possession is not the problem. Human nature is.

    replyreport
42. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    pharmaceuticals create the mentally ill who watch the video games who obtain the guns and go berserk.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry Kathryn, meds don't make people mentally ill. It's the ones who are OFF thier meds that are a problem.

       replyreport
43. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    Why do they need meds?

    replyreport
44. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    What is the cause of mental illness?
    oh, we can go to the moon of Jupiter >>>>>>>
    
    … which is strangely an earth-like moon...

    replyreport
    1. 61

       janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Bad brain chemistry.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Caused by …. ------->>>>>>>>?

          replyreport
          1. 61

             janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Nobody knows.

             replyreport
             1. 84

                Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                So you say.
                I know better.

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Really? I doubt it. Are you a research scientist studying pathological brain chemistry?
                   
                   Or am I schizoaffective because I played Pac-Man as a child?

                   replyreport
                2. 73

                   Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Oh yeah?  You know better than trained psychologists, doctors and neuroscientists?  How many scientific studies have you designed, carried out, and replicated?

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      She does not go by facts or statistics.  She goes by common sense and philosophy.  She said so somewhere on these forums.

                      replyreport
45. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    mental illness is caused by neglect and ignorance in the raising of a child.
    
    Totally.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       You are wrong. Totally.
       
       Mental illness can also be cause by physical dysfunction of the brain that the most wonderful of parenting cannot override.

       replyreport
    2. 73

       Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Um, but you just said it was because of drugs and video games.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          thats part of the negligence and ignorance.
          
          
          Misfit chick already provided this:
          http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gu … -violence/

          replyreport
          1. 73

             Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Mhmm.  Parents medicating their children who have health issues.  Super negligent.

             replyreport
          2. 84

             Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             they do not need meds. for gosh sakes! THEY DO NOT NEED THEM.
             They need acceptance of their condition and working with it.  Diet in many cases cures mental illness.
             For instance white flour / sugar robs the body of vital B vitamins.
             B vitamins are necessary for proper brain and nervous system functioning. 
             
             
             here is the key issue from that article:
             
             
             " In many of the recent tragedies, the shooters were described as loners, full of emotional pain and who, at times, were blatantly antisocial. Most of society simply ignores those people, further marginalizing them. The interrupters would do the opposite; they would target those people."

             replyreport
             1. 73

                Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                None of that contradicts medication.  Sure, if you prescribe someone something without giving it any thought and refuse to offer therapy and emotional support of top if it then yeah, that would be negligent.  But often both medication and therapy are necessary if we're talking about serious mental illness.
                
                You and "Dr." Mercola would get along nicely.

                replyreport
                1. 84

                   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   look at the profile of the recent shooters!
                   
                   Look at the faces of the killers in the link I provided before.
                   Why do people go berserk?

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      The Oregon shooter didn't "go berzerk". He was planning it for years.

                      replyreport
46. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    (I would say he had been going berserk for years and no one noticed.)
    
    
    
    I say mental illness is caused by wrong pharmaceuticals, substances like alcohol and street drugs  and before that, leading to all that drug dependence:
    chronic negligence and ignorance in their past by … parents or whoever was in charge of their upbringing.
    
    Or are they JUST BORN THAT WAY?
    
    might be a new topic for another thread.

    replyreport
47. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

    I believe we are an over medicated society.  However, to categorically state that children/teens never need medication for a mental illness is pure ignorance.  In the same way a person can be born with a defect of the body that can be treated with medication, a person can be born with a structural or chemical defect of the brain, some of which can only be treated with medication.  No amount of therapy or proper nutrition will cure schizophrenia.  Yes, it can be better managed with proper nutrition and therapy, but many will still require medication to avoid delusions and other mental issues.

    replyreport
48. 84

    Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

    morals and boundaries. not following them is the problem.  not capitalism.
    well raised children who have healthy natural diets and robust mental health is the solution. Not removing the right to possess arms/guns/amunition.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       True

       replyreport
       1. 70

          wrenchBiscuitposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Today the American speaks of morals and boundaries. But where were those morals and boundaries when your "Founding Fathers" were stealing the land, murdering the natives, and using the black man as a beast of burden? It appears that such high morals and boundaries are a luxury that a poor man cannot afford.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Yes, I'd like to know that too.

             replyreport
49. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    As to medicated kids ,   Having been in a situation to discuss medicinal treatments for the mind , I can say without a doubt , I would never be or  let my child be treated with mind medications ! Unless absolutely necessary ! Doctors  offer so little information AND  medications  treat everyone differently . Sometimes with definite and undefinable  side affects .    Minds on a drug act differently and often  very differently from one another , let's face it  , one of the major issues  in mass killings have been prescription  drugged  mental  ex-patients .

    replyreport
50. 0

    ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

    You gotta love it when the parent of the shooter in Oregon  went on the news and advised Americans about the evils of  guns !   Jeee , I wonder why a Father hadn't dealt with his own son in "Quite some time "   
    Well , I got news for that dude  .   what about your idiot son ?  Full of hatred ,  full of disrespect for another mans choice of  faith ,     Why didn't he realize his "problem child " had so many "problems"  , to begin with ,yet I'm sure he knew exactly why his son was off the wall .  What a moron.
    
    I give up , there are just too many "problem children ".

    replyreport