Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Gun/Self Control

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 14, 2012, 10:05 p.m. EST by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This militaristic bullshit was good for what today? Nothing. It's always easier to point the finger, isn't it. We have all been watching the TV today, and we all want answers, regardless of your position on gun rights. We examine the profiles only to dismiss them as unreliable, we talk about gun laws even though we have disproved the correlations.

The truth is, we are all to blame. I have to admit, I used to watch the Maddow show with enthusiasm but as time goes on, I see being liberal doesn't bring with it wisdom or understanding.

We love violent movies, we like violent music, even radio rock now includes posers talking about kicking some ass. Not sex drugs and rock but "poor pitiful me" and "I'm a bigger bad ass than you".

Our country and culture is rife with not only violence but also animosity, hate. We bread liars, self serving shit heads, we numb the public with an endless stream of violence while enforcing the notion that only ass holes win. We give meaning to the phrase "dog eat dog" while reassuring our youth that the weak shall be eaten.

How much of our culture can a sane person withstand before becoming a lunatic like the rest of us. We are the problem. For the most part, we turn people into these monsters.

The world is filled with unemphatic people, just look to wall st if you have any doubt. But we would have a better time recognizing them and doing something about them if we could spend a few moments not tripping on our own shoe laces.

I know the media is watching this forum. Talk about this. Let go of the party bullshit for one fucking second. That is, if your tears today didn't come from a bottle.

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20442) 1 year ago

Why do Americans fight like hell to keep guns in their homes, guns! but they do nothing to fight for a living wage? Our priorities are so f'd up it makes me want to scream.

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

Partly because the majority don't actually experience the economic pain of the unemployed and under employed. The majority simply doesn't care about the problems that effect strangers. It's a sad but true reality.

They do however experience a fear of others, and it would seem they believe guns will protect them. Their priorities are correct, IN THEIR OWN MIND. It's their personal security first, personal economic security and personal safety. A stranger's economic security isn't in that race at all.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20442) 1 year ago

I appreciate your comment. In the end, though, I think we just live in a very sick society. Very sick on many levels. It is very sad.

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

Yes i agree, we do. It's likely the entire race is headed for extinction, but there aren't enough people that care to make a significant difference.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20442) 1 year ago

Sad sigh.

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

There are enough people but because of the abridging of free speech they are confused and divided. Article V is our greatest tool for change, but we have to know about it to begin to use it.

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

The problem isn't in finding solutions, it's in having enough support to implement those solutions. There just isn't any meaningful support for a constitutional convention.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Only 3 in10 Americans know what Article V is.

There is meaningful support for abolishing or altering abusive government, but people do not know that Article V is the way to do it, IF we can know constitutional intent and become "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" as Lincoln said in 1859.

Finding support is a matter of free speech, and it is abridged. That is why the only logical proposal is for Americans who can understand this to demand Article V WITH preparatory amendment, to make the nations people more constitutiuonal. Amendment effecting these things.

1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

There won't ever be an article V convention unless they advertise it between Jersey shore and the Kardashians.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yep, media has provided major distractions and by exploiting semiotics peoples lower instincts are controlling them. However, the controlled economic crash may be designed to either arouse them, or perhaps its the last phase of boiling the frogs.

One way or the other they will know. Question is are they boiled or awake and can they still jump?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Judging by the Presidential election, of which 98.5% of the people voted for just two parties, the people are firmly under the control of the political-economic elite, simmering in one red pot and one blue pot..

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yes, under the control of the media perceptions, controlled by the "political-economic elite".

Which is why pPreparatory Amendment is so vital. It legally undermines any criticism of Article V because it makes it politically safe AND puts the critic in the obvious position of having to reject what is quite obviously constitutional intent.

Preparatory Amendment 1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote

All constitutional citizens agree to only vote for delegates who will propose and work to ratify amendments that effect 1) thru 3). Delegates agree to for a set time for 1) thru 3) to make the nation able to know and define constitutional intent for use at Article V, as all amendments must be constitutional.

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

I'm not sure how you see free speech as being abridged.

Simply educating the population as to what the constitution states doesn't guarantee the majority will agree that the changes you desire are necessary.

The nation is split on what is the best course of action, I don't see a two thirds agreement being reached on the idea of rewriting the constitution. Remember about 48% of those that voted voted Republican.

Even if you were to achieve the goal of getting the convention called, given the divide in this country it's almost a 50-50 chance what comes out of it could be worse then what we have.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

The intent of free speech is that information needed for survival be shared and understood. This is consistent with the main principles of the constitution.

Ever notice how many people are dying lately for no good reason? Free speech would have stopped this a decade ago, if it existed.

The constitution makes limited and general statements. It is up to Americans to interpret the statements in ways which they agree have constitutional intent.

Article V is not "re writing the constitution, it is a convention to propose amendments to the constitution. To term it such is to use the generalizations that those against it want us to use.

The dumbing down which started in 1912 assured that very few Americans would understand enough about constitutional intent to readily accept it. Then mass media refuses to discuss it or share violations of it.

The intent of freedom of speech is that there be a potential for each person to reach all other persons so that information needed to defend life be shared and understood. So there are 2 parts to the abridging. One is the education to understand, the other is the ability to outreach adequately to define problems within the understanding that is held by the majority.

There is fully constitutional strategy that can assure that Article V serves us in every way. I've posted on it here.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-think-the-page-at-link-below-is-the-most-importa/#comment-893836

Observe the part about the decision a "mother and father" needs to make.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

"...shared and understood". That the populace would be capable of understanding or interpreting in the same manner is not possible. As a result, people are influenced by others on what to do, what or who to believe, who to vote for. Even people that do understand are influenced by others. That will always be so. The idea that we perform surgery to the constitution may not get what you want, but something entirely different, and then what would you do? The document is fine. Start with the interpretation of intent.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Keep context, this is survival we're talking about.

engineer4 wrote:

"...shared and understood". That the populace would be capable of understanding or interpreting in the same manner is not possible."

Please describe your fears AFTER America experiences. . .

Preparatory Amendment 1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote

MsStacy

http://occupywallst.org/forum/gunself-control/#comment-895308

is currently evading commenting upon the cure for her fears which are just like yours, Preparatory Amendment.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

context?. survival? i disagree. i do not follow that free speech is abridged. show me where you can not speak or where information is restricted. the internet allows more freedom of access to any information. it is up to the reader to discern truth and falsehood and then call it out for others to see. you are speaking here with no problem. i support campaign finance reform but that's another discussion and probably differs from what you desire. Secure the vote? secure it from what? who is stealing your vote?.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Is it more constitutional to say information vital to survival must be shared and understood, than it is to say you can say what you want?

In this link you will see how human nature responds to exactly what that translates to in the generalities that comprise amendment to our constitution to see that life can protect itself by sharing information.

MsStacy http://occupywallst.org/forum/gunself-control/#comment-895308 is currently evading commenting upon the cure for her fears which are just like yours, Preparatory Amendment.

engineer4 wrote: "show me where you can not speak or where information is restricted."

This forum for one. Someone's posts got "technosabotaged", it still happens. http://algoxy.com/ows/owsinfiltratingforum.html

There is no free speech on .com. To be constitutional, information protecting life must be shared and understood. Perhaps you are not aware of the dumbing down beginning in 1912. There was a time where people agreed on a great deal and a thing called the constitution was made to limit the powers of government and give power to the people. Therein is the constitutional intent.

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

Once you open a constitutional convention there is no limit placed on what can and can not be done, that is one reason often sited for not calling for one.

Article V also deals with the amendment process. Either way, convention or just an amendment, you still need to somehow get a two thirds majority to agree. That's my point, most of the very difficult issues we face are difficult to solve because the split is close to 50-50. It doesn't matter if the blame can be assigned to poor education. If close to half the population don't see the same problems you do then nothing can be done.

Your statement about parents assumes that they believe what you are saying is the truth. The fact is that what you believe may be a shared by only a small minority.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Article V places limits on amendment, so this not correct.

MsStacy wrote: "Once you open a constitutional convention there is no limit placed on what can and can not be done, that is one reason often sited for not calling for one."

ARTICLE V

"shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,"

Who rightfully defines constitutional intent? Lincoln, 1859, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts."

And it is more than 2/3 to ratify. 3/4 are required, but, when they do congress nor the president have any authority to oppose. 2/3 is required to apply. Congress has not been counting while misinterpreting the constitution to avoid calling a convention.

I've made no statements about parents directly, they shall make their own and I ask for YOU to indicate;

Which mother or father in this nation will ignore or pass up the real opportunity to assure their child will grow into a nation that holds high and honors understanding that can create; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness?

This is justified because with preparatory amendment, Article V can only do good for us.

PREPARATORY AMENDMENT:Making the nations people constitutional enough to define constitutional intent.

1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote

All citizens agree to only vote for delegates that have agreed to propose amendments and work to ratify amendments that meet those ends before allowing a general Article V convention to begin. They also agree to propose a period of time or condition whereupon the Article V begins.

In that period of time, all of the dysfunctional activism we have surrounding us turns into very specific and compelling proposals for amendment and is properly channeled into a convention where all states legislators must consider the amendments.

Addendum: Justified by the fact congress has been evading duty, violating oath, law and the constitution for 100 years, very likely to better control states, democratic special elections in states need to be applied with certain proposed amendments and their ratification.

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

You need two thirds to agree just to invoke article V, no point in worrying about ratification when you can't reach the two thirds majority needed to call for a convention in the first place.

You linked to this statement from an earlier post, "Which mother or father in this nation will ignore or pass up the real opportunity to assure their child will grow into a nation that holds high and honors understanding that can create; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness?". It was that statement I was referring to. You assume that others will agree with your view. That is the problem, many do not.

You can, of course get agreement on the point that something is wrong, but when it comes to the specifics things fall apart. I seriously doubt you could get a majority to believe free speech is being abridged.

Campaign finance reform is another topic where you might get agreement on the vague idea of regulation being necessary, but not a majority on specifics.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

MsStacy and soniafrompoland need to answer this question.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/gunself-control/#comment-895817

If they are to be reasonable and accountable.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yea, I just explained that to you. MsStacy wrote: "You need two thirds to agree just to invoke article V"

And congress violated their oaths, the law and the constitution in 1911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg

We are due an Article V WITHOUT 2/3 applying AGAIN. Any disagreement is unconstitutional.

A valid criminal complaint has been made to the AG.

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-refuses-to-call-a-convention-to-amend/

MsStacy wrote: ""You assume that others will agree with your view. That is the problem, many do not."

And I've asked you to produce one mother or father that "will ignore or pass up the real opportunity to assure their child will grow into a nation that holds high and honors understanding that can create; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness?".

I'm working for that opportunity. Are you working against it?

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Free speech leads to understanding. It is abridged, that means it's going to be more difficult. I'm here, typing trying to explain to you that all parents will always want their children to live in a society where such speech can occur.

This is called natural law.

Either we enforce it or our children suffer.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I do not believe that we live in a sick society as you say, but that some make the society seem sick. There is a difference. There are way more good people than bad.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Gee, I guess only 20 people read that. Too bad. At least you can type as much as you want. Eventually someone should get it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Hmm congress didn't have to do anything, corporations and the FCC did it all.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

"our priorities" or yours?

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

I will take no blame or responsibilty for what happened in conneticut. As long as there are guns, people will die. As long as there are cars on the road, people will die. As long as people walk out of their door and live life, there will be the risk of dying. It is not that I am unempathetic, I am truly saddened. I just do not subscribed to the place of government in dictating private behavior. What can be done to prevent this from happening again? Nothing. It will happen again. The best that we can do is talk with our children, friends, colleagues. Live our own lives as an example for those around us.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you do believe in a society based on the rule of law right?.

And you do believe the peoples govt should pass laws for the general good right?

You support our laws against murder, maybe even the laws against citizens making and using bombs.

Sometimes the people need to create new laws for the protection of the general good.

Is the concept of small govt or gun rights more important to you than trying to prevent these slaughters.?

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

A valid argument, but there are already laws in place to prevent this. What would be the point of implementing more laws when people are breaking the rules that are already here? OK, let's just humor the other side for a moment. If changes need to be made, then perhaps metal detectors at all school entrances (although it is truly a sad state of affairs when those are needed at an elementary school), I would say stricter laws regarding the use of a parent's firearm by a minor, except that the shooter was 20.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"What would be the point of implementing more laws when people are breaking the rules that are already here?" What is that a fuckin joke? Are you some kinda goddamn moron?

The mother knew he was mentally ill, made the guns accessible, took him to a shooting range.

She was an irresponsible parent and gun owner. She was responsible for those deaths in part. If there ain't a law against that, let's pass it.

And what about the other friends or family who knew these facts. I saw the aunt state these facts, the father/ex husband, the brother? Arrest those irresponsible low lifes. Give them a long jail term, and let's see how quick we start getting scores of reports from concerned citizens.

Gun safety is critical. This gun owner did not practice gun safety.

You don't see a law we could pass to minimize these slaughters.?

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

your shit diatribe put aside, you actually made me aware of things about the family I did not know. Now that I know that, what law would you have in mind that would have prevented this? If semiautomatics are banned, he would have still had the pistols. If his father was not the primary parental custodian, then he is not responsible for what happened. The person who would be ultimately responsible, I would imagine, would be his mother and she is dead. You want to jail a number of his relatives, who may have had no idea of what was happening, who had no idea or control of what happened in his mother's home? Well then, the "concerned citizens" filing reports may just be vindictive people out to put someone they do not like in jail. sort of like Stalinist USSR

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I said they did know. I said they had a responsibility to report it. Take action. The father certainly knew, and if not should have. Same thing with any drs that may havedealt with him.

Negligence. Thats the law. Stalinist Russia? Stop with that extremist paranoia crap. We accept the concept citizens duty of reporting crimes. This ain't no different.

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

There is a duty. But, remember, as far anyone knows, no crime was committed until he broke into the school (no one at that time knew that he had murdered his mother). So what would have been reported? Did he do anything to deserve to be Baker-acted? I wonder if the family had tried to intervene privately.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Someone should have reported that the mother was being irresponsible.

Allowing access to guns, training this mentally ill person at the shooting range is not right.

What is "Baker-acted"?

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

I do not know the legal history. But to Baker-act someone is to force an individual to be in a mental care facility for 72 hours if they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others. It usually requires some family member to contact law enforcement. No crime has been committed. It is more like prevention. examples could include a schizophrenic family member who will not take their meds or an attempted suicide. As irresponsible as the mother was (if the facts hold up. I have not done any reading on this), no crime was committed.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I would say the mothers actions should be against the law, ifthey ain't.

Our mental health system sucks. Much needs to be done to cover these people, and to ensure fairness without abuse.

But none of these difficulties means we shouldn't hold the mother responsible. And nothing indicates we shouldn't use the broken system & of course commit to fix it.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Re: Up with Chris. So now the media is namedropping Occupy to legitimize their partisan rhetoric. No surprises there. Occupy is not left or right and Mr Hayes needs to stop trying to corral Occupy to the left. 99% buddy, and that will never change.

[-] 1 points by ogoj2 (32) 1 year ago

A lot of perceptive comments here and on other threads on this site, things that the MSM just doesn't say.

Here's my comment: It's been 24 hours and I keep trying to find out about this guy Lanza. It seems like the nation's journalists have not produced one single piece of real info, just a lot of vague impressions (nerdy, ill adjusted, etc.) and externals (carried a briefcase in high school).

It's remarkable how little has emerged. What did he think? What did he do?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He slaughter 28 people including his mother. The MSM had an interview with his aunt who said he was not well (in the head) yet his mother took him to the shooting range and had a small arsenal accessible to him.

Anything else?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Hmmmmm, so you're calling for an even bigger BIG brother, to help put a stop to this?

[-] 3 points by ogoj2 (32) 1 year ago

No, as far as policy goes, it's just totally obvious we need to get rid of guns, no matter what, everywhere, all kinds. Forget the laws, rewrite the Constitution, start attacking and burning down gun shops. Stop trying to protect the right to shoot clay pigeons or hunt for venison. Just take the toys away from the boys.

But that's obvious. Not going to happen, but it's what ought to happen.

To me the interesting thing is how a 20 year old boy can be so totally unknown. No one has the foggiest idea what's going on in his head, because, let's face it, the vague stuff we've heard could describe about half the kids in the world.

All the lonely people...

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

We do not need any calls for violence. There are better ways of reform. You are advocating (attacking) for something that would result in more death and destruction. There is no issues with target or hunting. How about a little responsibility?

[-] 1 points by ogoj2 (32) 1 year ago

Destroying gun shops is irresponsible?

Maybe you haven't been following the news lately?

Because I thought I was a model of sensible restraint and moderation.

Extremism means something like chopping off all the 'guns' the sick American males were born with, or maybe just trying to create a society without men.

Your friend in sensible moderation, ogoj

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

destruction is not an option, it is a violent method and yes, it is irresponsible. I am for non-violent methods. and the sentence "....sick American males..." ? What is that about? is there an issue that you are trying to say about extremism? One person's extremes are another's norms.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I've called for two things, one being a "market" solution.

Bio triggers, for one thing. If you can't shoot your buddies ( or your Moms) gun....too bad.

Go buy one.

Yeah, jerks and criminals will get around it, what else is new, but if most guns were, it would take a lot of problems away.

And a "no fault" insurance pool, paid yearly on every gun.

This would pay the costs of all gun damages, from the drunk who was cleaning one and it went off and hit his buddy in the shoulder, to the MANY tragic events we have today.

All covered, all inclusive.

It would tend to make it self policing, and insurance providers would provide leverage to make things better, just like they do with auto manufacturing.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

The bottom line is fear. The world is an insecure place. Granted we make it even more insecure. But it is all in how we react to fear. Some people overcome it with courage. They don't hide and they don't hate. They live normal lives. And they don't arm them selves. The one's who are extremely fearful we call paranoid and they want weapons and bunkers and they hate those whom they fear. Both hiding and hatred are forms of cowardice.

Weapons are tools of the fearful and they remind them that they are fearful rather than making them feel secure. Giving the access to weapons to cowards feeds their fear and makes them more likely to act on their fear.

Who is more stupid, the people with the psychological problem who want guns, or the people who make them available (legalize them, sell them, make movies that scare them) or similarly, the drug addict or the people who give or sell the addict the drug? This isn't as hard to understand as people are trying to make it.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Words are the tools of evolution.

brightonsage wrote: "They don't hide and they don't hate. They live normal lives."

The APA is deeply negligent at the behest of an infiltrated US government, so treatment of psychological problems that might lead to extreme violence is not developed. It does exist and courts have unconstitutionally blocked it. You don't know about this because free speech is abridged. Freedom of the press is also abridged.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I am very much in favor of addressing and treating mental illness. Dealing with irrational fear (paranoia) before it harms the innocent seems so obvious. Yet we focus on fighting about exacerbating the symptom of wanting guns and armor, and the support of organizations that trade on paranoia.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

As long as the infiltrated government prevents justice and reason in courts and no one can learn of it with free speech abridged, actual methods of treating mental illness which are effective will not be developed.

Here is something VERY obviously in control of every human mind on the planet, but medicine, psychology and science almost completely ignore it.

http://i41.tinypic.com/a15nx3.jpg

It is the proportions of the conscious mind to the unconscious mind as well as their relative continuity. It is not conceivable that humanity could control itself in any significant way without acknowledging and using this information.

Accordingly, if the preceding is understood, an alliance in reason needs to be made. Who will stand for reason?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

And I thought it was just a bar code.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Hah! Every 16 hours each human mind is completely unconscious, and we cannot say with any reasonable degree of certainty that they are totally separated and not acting together in ways that are destructive in the long run.

It is absolutely unacceptable that science, medicine and psychology operate in ignorance of this fact. We will be destroyed, and while it is happening, we will not know why. Sound familiar?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Well, not completely.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Or we know of a few things causing our destruction but not why they are doing what they do. Basically, we do not know why we are destroying ourselves rather than doing something else which we also know of.

However it is "absolutely unacceptable that science, medicine and psychology operate in ignorance of this fact. "

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

You admit the world is full of danger and your solution is to remove any form of defense against that danger. Your argument is decidedly paradoxical. Come back when you have a genuine interest in resolve.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Much of the real danger we have exacerbated and continue to do. Adding more reminders that it exists just makes it worse. Fear isn't removed or reduced by more fear.

That said I am still "normal" enough not to join the sickos, but l live without a high level of concern for their "threat" or yours. Fighting fire with fire is a paradox, using water is sensible. If more would join my position and start reversing the enabling we are doing we could all sleep even better. The wild West wasn't such a good idea and it was abandoned. They were safer with all of the guns hanging in the jail than after they left town with them.

You have my sincere sympathy and wishes for a speedy recovery.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Arrogance born of ignorance born of willful blindness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

For all your talk of cowards and fear, it is you who is a coward. Like I said, come back when you have a genuine interest in resolve.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Why do you feel so threatened by the lack of a threat? Think about it. Cowards hate people who show their cowardice. Guns are pacifiers for adults.

I used them to feed my very poor family (hunting not robbing). But, I got educated and able to make a living without them. I know what they do and how to handle them. I no longer have any need for them or for buggy whips.

Reality isn't too big for me. I am comfortable with it. If you understand it it poses only a modertate threat. I am sorry you are so fearful. You talk of a solution as if you have one that I am unable to understand.

Certainly it could have been implemented by now by the majority who agree with you? Am I safe already or more safe than I was decades ago before there were more guns and more paranoid people? Will I die tomorrow because I threaten no one? Why do people conceal their weapons? Is it so that others with guns won't know who to shoot first? Are they hiding behind people who are less fearful? Are they cowards? I am the coward? What is the definition?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Still ignoring any facts or statistics presented to you, racing right past it to get to your next talking point. How does it feel to be a blind follower. Honestly, because I've never ever been capable of such spinelessness. I don't own a gun but I'm not so naive to buy the Democrats line that gun laws are the solution since most of these atrocities are committed with legally purchased firearms. Since the gang violence has only worsened in countries that tighten gun control.

One last question. Will your war on guns go better than the war on drugs?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Is this one that we win with statistics? OK, which culture is handling this issue best? Who is it that you presume that I am following. I have no idea. Spinelessness would relate to "Lacking resolution; weak and purposeless"? I don't see anything in my posts that qualify. You certainly haven't intimidated me into reversing my position have you? On the other hand your rant is exemplary of vacillation. "I have to admit, I used to watch the Maddow show with enthusiasm but as time goes on, I see being liberal doesn't bring with it wisdom or understanding." Maybe you should pursue understanding and wisdom first and later notice if it should be called liberal? Your post shows an amazing lack of consistency yet you attack me for being spineless with no evidence. Son, you seem confused, but projecting it onto me will get you no permanent relief. There are no magic bullets that you seek. And there will never be a perfect solution that we can all agree upon before we do anything, But there are a lot of things that can be done to shrink the problem a little. Every life, every drop of blood is worth saving. We should try them all. Forcing everyone including children to carry a gun seems unlikely to do much good but there are less radical measures. You don't seem comfortable with all guns or no guns. You just want somebody else to fix it. Well they won't. But if somebody wants to improve mental health I will support that. If someone can keep fewer guns from getting in the hands of the paranoid, I can support that. Big brother, little brother, Aunt Thelma, all have pluses and minuses. I have been shot at and I don't like it but I am not personally going to carry a gun or sleep with one under my pillow. I don;t have a war on guns. I wash my hand before I eat but I don't have a war on germs. Abandoning things that don't work isn't a war. How is the war on people who don't want to carry guns going?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

"Is this one that we win with statistics? " now mean nothing to you? Then there is no point debating with you. You see only what you choose to see and that has no bearing or relevance to a real solution. Have fun with that.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

And the real solution, the universal can opener is?????? Ta Daaa!!!!!! What?

Thank you for that. The world will bow down to you and shower your path with rose petals. Whew, I was afraid we missed it.

A country with a much smaller problem than we have, has noticed that it is getting worse. Ergo? What does it all mean? Hmmmmmmm?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your post, THIS post is an angry rant of the type you rail against.

You seem angry. Are you? Why? Do you own guns?

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Consider 2nd Amd. supporters cannot fight for the logic that people kill people not guns. Then, demand that government develop the best forms of mental health care because that benefits society hugely. Currently the authorities of psychology are deeply negligent and non feasing. There are forms of mental health care which are avoided because they violate ancient premise the church holds.

We've been conditioned to respond to social fears and logic mostly doesn't matter. Many social fears are not reasonable.

The partisan BS mentioned pivots around the uses of social fears in the form of spurious political options designed to distract.

By focusing on constitutional intent, as in Article V we become the "rightful masters of the congress and courts" (Lincoln 1859). So dumping not just the partisan politics but all other forms as well does nothing but get out of the box. Out of the box we can be humans agreeing on the most fundamental level about the most important things while we are also citizens. Doing this defines essentially what is also constitutional intent. That action invokes our rightful positions as masters.

We need free speech to do it easily, but with understanding, it might just start to happen.

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 1 year ago

Can't disagree with most of what you say. But let's face it: it can vary by degrees but it is really no different around the world?

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I will give you the benefit of the doubt one more time.

Tell me, how do you define a man?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

I like penguins. You should look into their paternal habits.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

None of the replies to this thread show any understanding. If you cannot or if you refuse to get the point, to understand the issue, you can do nothing about it. This kid grabbed legally owned firearms. The football player suicides were committed with legal firearms. You can fight the NRA all you like but you will have done nothing to solve the problems and while you thump your chests, this will continue because the Left in this instance is the party of DU!

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Do you understand that people kill people, not guns? From iphone

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

I understand that guns get impoverished youth in trouble a lot and that areas that lack gun control should tighten up. But the recent school shooting has nothing to do with gun control, I agree.

[-] 3 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Free speech is abridged and courts are not constitutional so the methods of treating people for potential extreme violence are not known.

There are very effective and ethical ways but the APA evades recognizing the core that drives human behavior. The issue has been before the US district courts of the 9th circuit and in order to evade they made SECRET LOCAL COURT RULE change that can be used to deprive pro se civil rights plaintiff of access to courts.

The entire nation lacks appropriate mental health care because of this.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But it does have to do with gun safety right? If the shooter was mentally ill no guns should have in the house and accessible.