Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 26 innocent lives is a terrible price to pay - even one would be too many

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 17, 2012, 2:16 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This should wake up America to the truth about
guns

This should wake up America to the truth about
gun company profits

This should wake up America to the truth about
gun company profits buying congress

This should wake up America to the truth about
ALL . CAPITALIST . PROFITS . BUYING . CONGRESS


It is NOT just the gun money, it is the
prison privatization money,
oil money,
drug company money,
armaments money,
bank money


government of the people, by the rich, for the corporations


we MUST disconnect capitalism from democracy


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


30 Comments

30 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

so you apparently are not the least interested in discovering if or to what degree research behind the label MK-ULTRA may have contributed to the field of ANALYTICAL BEHAVIORISM - which posits that thought and behavior are directly linked, and that behavior will contribute to an understanding and predictability of thought - nor are you curious to know if ANALYTICAL BEHAVIORISM and related fields of endeavor may be responsible for mass murder of this kind.

So long as it may be said The Dream Police prowl our land I think I'll be keeping my guns, thanks.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I agree with you on that one.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20601) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Interesting.

[-] 1 points by wEuene (9) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I saw they lit up 27 flares at the football game last night...http://pleasedontvomitinthetaxi.blogspot.com/2012/12/27-flares-were-fired-off-to-commemorate.html

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

War money too

What will it take to wake America up about the "casualty" epidemic?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
is the only way to cut off the serpent's head

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

How do you propose to do that? Money buys everything everybody needs from the womb to the tomb. Even the act of simply getting the message out costs millions of dollars. Fair share? Fiscal Cliff? Recession? Recovery? It is all about money. Money, sorry sport, makes the world go around.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

HOW? do what 80% of Americans + 100 congressmen + 1309 mayors advocate


http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com


Virtually everything we want hinges on disarming our opponent –
……………………………………………………..GREED
by stopping the flood of bribes into our government.
by stopping the control – by their capitalism – of our democracy


YOU WANT TO GET IT DONE ?
Join the NYC OWS
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group


This is the first REAL step to REAL change .

government OF the people BY the people FOR the people

JOIN US >
Join the NYC OWS Corporations Are Not People and Money Is Not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
………………………….no signup or password
check out our comprehensive analysis of
the 17 existing proposed amendments
and our detailed historical timeline of corporate personhood
and our voting bloc plan


http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG.com


Are you ready
.....................FOR ACTION ?
Are you ready
.....................TO DO SOMETHING REAL ?
Are you ready
......................TO JOIN 80% OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ?


We must not
DEMAND that we WANT THEM.to give to US
We must
DEMAND GOALS THAT WE WILL ACHIEVE FOR OURSELVES


Because of the Supreme Court's decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant, without FIRST -

Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!


80% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll


In the the PFAW Poll -

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today.
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount corporations can spend on elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.


COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE ARE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


Our primary goal should be to elect representatives who support a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ACT ----> JOIN US TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP, the TP, the anti-SOPA – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power and political pressure to achieve their minority goals - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one task that the MAJORITY want.


Join the NYC OWS Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

http://www.nycga.net/groups/restore-democracy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYCRDWG
http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium
resuming 1/2/2013


░░░░█░..░███░░.███░░█░...░█░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░ ░█░░░█░░░█.█░..█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░ ░█░░░█░░░█░.█..█░░░░█░░░█░█░░░░░░
░░░░█░░█░ ░█░░░█░░░█░░ ██░░░░█░░░█░.████░░
░░░░█░░█░ ░█░░░█░░░█░░░ █░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
░░░░█░░█░ ░█░░░█░░░█░░░ █░░░░█░░░█░░░░░█░░
█░░░█░░█░ ░█░░░█░░░█░░░ █░░░░█░░░█░█░.░█░░
..███░░ .░███░..░███. ░█░░░ █░░ ░░████░░███░░░


[-] 0 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

I just wanna know one thing. When the Republicans own the House, Senate and White House (and they will sooner or later), will you wish the citizenry was armed to keep them in check?

The whole point of the second amendment and 250 million firearms floating around is to prevent tyranny. Nothing has to ever be carried out. The mere fact of an armed citizenry keeps the political class from tyrannical rule.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

That's hasn't been a good reason to own a gun for quite a while. I don't mean we'd never have to fight tyranny, but against a well trained police force or armed military, citizens wouldn't stand much of a chance in an armed conflict, with guns or without.

[-] -1 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

The jury isn't in on that. Let's hope we never have to find out. I'd like to keep politicians wondering, lest they abuse us.

I do not want to be a "subject" of the state.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

You honestly think any group of typical citizens could match a trained unit from the police or military, if they were unleashed? I don't mean sent in with orders to be restrained, but totally unleashed. No one can predict what public or political reaction would be, but in a military sense, the trained force would win the battle.

Politicians, being what they are, are only interested in how things look. In that sense a failed citizen revolt of any size would be something they would want to avoid. An unarmed citizenry in revolt would be fatal to a politician.

[-] -1 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

Will the American military unleash on its own people?

Take a look around the world where similar events have taken place. It's about 50/50.

Bottom line, confiscation is a bad enabler of the state. The second amendment is there for a reason.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

I have no idea what anyone in power may or may not do. This started with your Jeffersonian quote alluding to citizens making their government fear them. Real fear generates a response. Power may flee from it or fight it. An armed rebellion, if it ever occurred, would most likely generate an armed response.

The second amendment may or may not have outlived it's intended purpose, I make no judgement on that either. It's just I don't believe that simple restrictions on guns are ever going to stop gun violence. Live with them or amend the constitution and ban them totally.

Even if you repeal the second amendment and remove all guns from private hands you'd only stop gun violence. You'll never stop a madman from taking lives, you can only force him to change his method. Man has a violent nature. When you look at violent crime statistics, Canada and many of the European nations have higher violent crime rates then the US.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

You are correct that a madman that wants to take lives will take lives regardless. Look at Timothy McVeigh and what he could do with fertilizer. But repealing the 2nd amendment doesn't stop gun violence.

Why does anyone think that making guns illegal will do anything to get rid of them and stop gun violence. Outlaw guns and the only people that have them are criminals. Just like when alcohol was made illegal, the criminal element bootlegged it and made it available without any kind of regulation. I don't understand what makes anyone think that by outlawing guns the problem goes away. Drugs are illegal but there is a huge black market for them that is unregulated. Banning guns just creates a new unintended consequence. The only ones that have guns are the criminals and all law abiding citizens are at their mercy.

Has anyone noticed that all but one of the many massacres since the 1980s has occurred in gun-free zones, post offices, colleges, schools, churches, movie theaters. Criminals know that they have easy targets in gun-free zones. No one in them will be carrying a gun.

One past incident at a church in Aurora, Colorado in April (this is the one in Aurora that no one heard about) wasn't what a killer expected when a woman of the congregation that happened to be an off duty cop showed up for services with her gun in her possession and when he started shooting up the congregation in the parking lot, she pulled her gun and shot him before too many had been hurt. Only one woman died from the incident (the pastor's wife) but many more would have if she hadn't been there or hadn't brought her gun. There are many stories where guns saved lives but no one hears about them because that wouldn't support the media/political propaganda agenda.

People need to use common sense. If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them because they don't obey the law.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

I'm in a strange position, I don't own a gun and wouldn't want one. I see total elimination of handguns for private citizens, rather then restrictions on clip size or rate of fire, as a better solution to gun violence, if you're going to do anything.

The people saved in the Aurora incident you mentioned owe their life to someone well trained. The typical citizen in a dangerous situation like that could easily panic and make things worse.

I also know that there is no way we're ever going to repeal the second amendment. Even if we did ban guns, the violence is in people and will not end simply because we've taken guns out of the equation.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I just can't understand why anyone thinks that banning guns will stop gun violence. As I said, if you make it illegal only the criminals will have them. Prohibition of alcohol and the extensive black market for drugs proves that. The cause is not the guns, it's the people behind the guns. We need to focus on that and the lack of conscience and morals in our society that 20 year olds have become the common mass murderer.

As far as disarming the citizenry, Adolf Hitler said in 1933: "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens". The citizenry should never give up it's right to bear arms.

Here are a few actual quotes as to why it was important to the founders to make sure it had a place in the Bill of Rights.

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself....the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference..." George Washington First President of the United States

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke British Statesman, 1784

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Now back to the mass shootings, I gave you one example but there are many and the majority are not police officers. Why do people think that you have to be a police officer to have common sense when using a firearm. I've attached a link on some facts about mass shootings. If you need more examples, let me know and I will show you more. One of the reasons Holmes picked that particular movie theater was because it was the ONLY one in the area that posted "gun free zone". Holmes knew no one would shoot back.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

And just in case you need proof that outlawing guns doesn't work, Norway outlawed guns, yet a madman shot & killed 87 adults and children. Most of them were children and this was just last year.

Common sense, what happened to common sense in this country. When did people stop thinking for themselves and drawing conclusions from facts rather than the garbage we are fed from mainstream media who has an obvious agenda.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

I agree, the problem isn't really the gun, it's the violent nature of human beings that is the real problem. I'm ambivalent about guns and gun regulation. I don't see registering and licensing as stopping the illegal use of hand guns. On the other hand if you don't make them or sell them, don't produce ammunition for them, the end result is gun's would be very hard to come by.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

"Guns will be hard to come by"

I don't think so, if not made here, they would be made somewhere else and smuggled in. Also, they have been made for too long. There would always be a way to get them, even old ones. But keep in mind also that if they are not being made commercially anymore, people will still make them as with alcohol in prohibition. And by not making them commercially, you deprive law abiding citizens from owning a gun or possibly make them criminals by having to go underground to purchase a gun. I want the right given to me by the 2nd amendment to own a gun to protect myself and my family if I so choose and if my neighbor doesn't feel that way, that's fine. He doesn't have to own a gun. But if his property or life are threatened, I would help to defend him. I don't own a gun but I don't want that right taken away if I should change my mind and as society gets more and more crazy, I may change my mind in the not too distant future.

I honestly think and studies show that when law abiding citizens possess guns, crime rates go down. I found a story this morning about a town in Georgia (Kennesaw) that passed a law in 1982 that required that every household have at least one member that is armed and firearms proficient and trained. People opposed at the time argued "Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts". Reuters, the European news service, revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre. Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta and has been murder free for 25 years.

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/gun-town-usa-25-years-murder-free-2477058.html

I don't think that requiring people to arm someone in their family is the right way to go because I don't think the gov't should force anyone to own or not own a gun, but this does show the impact of gun ownership of law abiding citizens. If a criminal or mass murderer thinks there may be someone with a gun behind a door, he is less inclined to break in.

I think the conversation America should be having is the moral bankruptcy of our society and the downward direction it continues to take. Why has fame become more important than decency? Why has greed taken over every aspect of our lives? Why do reality TV shows reward people for lying and deceiving with money, fame and tv ratings. These substance-less shows predominate the media. Why does a game show that rewards greed get the support of people that tune in to watch it? Why does this same game show demonstrate that out of 10 people, only 2 were honest and shared their winnings? The other 8 were greedy and some were rewarded and applauded. Why do people that are hypocrites get the approval of the masses for their hypocrisy. We've become a nation that lets our kids spend their time on devices that actually deprive them of face to face contact and interaction. We are now raising a new generation of children that sit across from each other yet instead of talking to each other, they call or text the person sitting across from them. They spend hours playing fictitious roles on video games that serve no educational or uplifting purpose but instead desensitize them to death and war. These games don't show the finality of death. In the video world they earn another life.

What will the next generation be like when they feel alone and want to take out their frustrations on a group in a theater or a school? We have been teaching the past 2 generations that greed, fame, selfishness, godlessness and deceit are good qualities to have. Their role models in sports, tv, movies, music, reality shows have no redeeming qualities and our children want to be more like them. We keep taking away and ridiculing the things that taught conscience and morals to our children and now they are adults with no conscience and morals. The scariest people that I have encountered in my life are people with no conscience. They hurt people with no feeling of having hurt someone. They don't feel bad because they have no moral compass. A person with no conscience can mug an 80 year old in a hallway for no apparent reason. A person with no conscience can shoot up a school of 6 year olds and never feel anything. A person with no conscience is a psychopath.

This is the conversation we need to have. Not disarming law abiding citizens and leaving them with no way to defend their home and families against the crazies who will always be out there. Disarming them while making it easier for the criminals to have their way with whomever they decide.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

I have no illusions about guns, it's most likely they will never be banned. I also don't believe regulations can ever be totally effective. The same people willing to break the law to purchase a smuggled gun will violate any regulation passed.

My basic view is that regulations are a waste of time. If you want to end gun violence then you have to get rid of guns. If that is impossible then it's going to be impossible to end gun violence.

As for the general disintegration of people's moral compass. We need more than conversation. Unfortunately any research into a true cause and effect may take generations. There is also no guarantee there is an answer or that we'll find it if it does exist.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1232) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Careful, they might drone you. Then you'll be totally buggered.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You are right - every Japanese & Sweed & Finn & Bolivian has a gun and they are doing fine - or am I as crazy as you are?

[-] -1 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

Then go live there. This is the USA. It's not another country. If you'd like your rights meted out (all of them) with the lack of the U.S. Constitution, then GTFO and relocate.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

love it or leave it
what racist war mongers started that one?

[-] 0 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin 1759

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

Smith and Wesson gave $20000 in political donations. Not exactly a heavy hitter.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

You started this by opening with gun corp profits. Your own thread and you still cant stay on target.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I never claimed to be a marksman ( but I am )

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

finally, a sense of humor!