Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Our Country is Going Mad

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 14, 2012, 1:49 p.m. EST by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Look at this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Plenty of almost NO regulation countries have much lower rates than we do. We are a violent-ass country. Most countries you arent afraid to walk down the streets at night.

And my defending myself, in my home, has nothing to do with some asshole killing people. Just like my smoking a joint has nothing to do with cartels killing people over territories.

Im just saying, that if you want to take it from all the people who simply want to be able to defend their family, the power hungry people will still get their hands on them is they wish.

Would it be harder to get them? Maybe. Would it lead to a lot of violence and another underground market that leads to many more deaths? Im not sure. The amount of death from the weed trade is staggering. And thats just pot.

Im just saying that people seem to be getting more and more violent. Road rage, UFC is the most popular sport, people beating each other on daytime television. Throw in a crumbling economy that is going to run out of Fed injection effectiveness soon, and you may find yourself living in a dangerous neighborhood.

There is something going on here, something that is deeper than simple gun control. There is a shift in how we deal with things, what our expectations of other people are, and how we choose to deal with our frustrations.

Take a pill only works for so long. And it avoids having to deal with the issues. Why are so many people going mad?

Forget for a second what it is they are using in their attacks. They are going mad. People are going crazy. This forum is pretty tame compared to some of the political ones. Go on there and look at how people talk to each other.

Go turn on the radio and hear the messages of pop music (ie popular culture). Jersey Shore is/was a hit. Watch it. Watch how these guys react to competition and challenges.

All of this media is messaging. Its constant messaging telling people how to talk, how to act, what to do, how to think. And that messaging is pretty fucked right now.

Look at how popular rap has become. Mainstream products are using Dre songs in their commercials. A guy who grew to fame by bragging about killing people and fuckin hoes. "Bitches and Shit but Hoes and Tricks"....this guy's songs are on primetime commericials now.

Check out ABC Family Channel's lineup. Secret Life - "Love triangles, drama, and scandalous rumors -- there's never a dull moment at Grant High!" Another show is Pretty Little Liars. This is ABC family- yes- family, mind you. The channel for little kids.

There is something much deeper than just simply gun violence going on here. Im not saying ban guns or dont. Im saying that this country is literally falling into a cultural cesspool.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Disarming the public is part of the 1% agenda.

I really feel for these poor souls.

However, you can't tar all gun owners on the actions of the few.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

You may be right, and what happens if guns are banned? We wind up with guns only in the hands of law enforcement, the military and very serious criminals. Even if a ban was enforced, and I doubt that's possible, people will just devise new weapons- zip guns, crossbows, whatever works. I never thought about it before but banning guns IS part of the 1% agenda. Why does the 1% need guns when the military, law enforcement and quite a few criminals already do their bidding?

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

While the oligarchs maintain control of military and civilian law enforcement, they have all the guns they need.

But, like their fear of the freedom of information factor of the internet, with people sharing information about them without recourse, a nation equipped with the means for effective self-defense is a little daunting.

Hence, you have programs like the flouridation of water, and aspartame added foods like your fastfood burgers to tame the angry hordes.

Lets' face it, the old religious and gender separatist issues they use are wearing thinner by the year.

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

We have guns.They have DRONES.Who controls the US Government?Nobody can answer that question.Many other relevant questions cannot be answered because of everything being "classified."If we could find out who actually controls the Government,gun owners could decide how much of a threat they pose to civilians and rethink which weapons they need and which they don't.But we are not allowed to know ANYTHING about ANYTHING.so people want the most destructive weapons they can get.Not only do people have these crazy combat rifles,they have RPG'S and all sorts of other stuff.Because of all the secrecy they are totally suspicious.I personally do not think that inpenatrable shrouds of secrecy hide good things.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 5 years ago

You made some good points.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

no one is pushing for an all out ban dont be ridiculous. gun ownership is a right however that being said. you don't have to be allowed to own semi auto or auto weapons. period.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

Some people are pushing for an all out ban. These people can either be part of the fringe on the far left or far right. The difference between them is that those on the left can be very vocal about wanting an all out ban while others who want a ban may have a more complex and far reaching agenda. Occupy is too smart to be side-tracked by any of these fear mongers and the only logical stand to take is to challenge the unrestricted capitalism of the gun manufacturers.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

i disagree there is wide support for a ban on semi automatic weapons. there is no need for them. you can still hunt and protect yourself and your things just fine with a revolver, shotgun, or standard rifle.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 5 years ago

the need is for the general ( law abiding) population NOT to have guns, its so much easier to control them. millions of people own guns and they dont commit any crimes with them.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Supporting the entire Bill of Rights should be one of OWS's unity prinicples.



[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

it is not about gun owners stupid. it is about the whole sale slaughter of innocent people. banning semi automatic weapons is going to happen and the sooner the better. public opinion has really swung on this one.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 5 years ago

Tell that to the 1%.

[-] 3 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Ban guns and people will just use bombs. You mention gangsta rap... what do you suppose would have happened to someone who produced these sixty or seventy years ago? Today they invite them into the White House.

As a society we've grown far too tolerant. And it's turning children into animals.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 5 years ago

If you're feeling helpless enough to fall into this nihilistic narrative about "the world has gone mad" take a look at this, get motivated and DO something to change the order of things: http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-message-to-all-the-well-meaning-democrats-and-re/

[-] 2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Just turn on Letterman at night, what do you see? A lot of really odd people. And that is what we celebrate today.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

A sad sign of decline is people thinking war is for peace.

[-] 5 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

There hasn't been a single act of war involving the ANZUS trio that wasn't all about greedy oligarchs, or (in other words) the continuance of a dead-end consumerist/capitalist growth scenario.

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Welcome to Capitalist Heaven.Things are the way they are because Wall Street demands it.The horrible,hideous results of Predator Capitalism are all around us and have permeated every aspect of life.Wall Street gets what Wall Street wants.There is always Capital available to build casinos,strip joints,tattoo parlors,nail salons,fast food joints,megabank branches and additional places for the public to sell their gold and silver.Almost forgot-adult bookstores.These kinds of businesses don't do a thing to build community-they are all variations on a favorite Capitalist business model-buying something valuable for a fraction of it's worth,or selling something that is worthless for a high price.Why the proliferation of such businesses?There really is no way any bank is going to finance businesses that build community like grocery stores,farms,day care centers etc.-because the kind of profits Wall Street insists on just aren't there.The degradation and immorality which has taken over the world is hugely assisted and partly caused by the commodification of everything,which is-Capitalist Heaven-heaven for a tiny group of amoral grifters-Hell for everybody else.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Spot on Harry. I completely agree. The problem is not guns or capitalism -the problem is that humans evidently can't maintain any level of self regulation in a capitalistic society. At one time, even though people 'sinned', there were boundaries and a level of decorum that was maintained out of respect for others. But, not anymore. As desperate as I am for a job, there is no way that I could capitalize on selling drugs or pornography or anything else that degrades or objectifies someone. I wonder some days how Maury Povich manages to get up each morning and go to work. Jerry Springer? Mark Burnett and his 'reality' shows? What kind of people can go to work each day knowing they are modeling immorality and making millions doing it? This is how they show their respect for their country? It's shameful.

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Somebody out there on the Internets has stated that what this planet needs is a planetwide ban on individual and corporate fortunes amounting to more than 1 billion usd.Other people of course think it should be less.but I don't know how anybody could conceivably argue that a billion dollar fortune is somehow not adequate to their needs.And we must get rid of the Bankster cartels.We have got to restrict access to these giant piles of wealth because they are being used as weapons.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

It does seem rather odd that anyone would need so much money. I have often contemplated what I would do if I had a few extra million lying around and I can assure you that I would not keep anything that I did not need. But, then there lies the dilemma...' how much do we actually NEED'. People make all sorts of clever excuses that disguise greed as need.

[-] 3 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

I have been acquainted with a number of wealthy people who simply have NO ability to STOP thinking about ways to get more money.They believe that money is more valuable than anything you could ever buy with it,and that the acquisition of money is a Holy Crusade.Capitalism is their religion.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

I have a brother like that but he's a money hoarder. He doesn't waste it on anything or buy fancy things and he's not trendy. But, like our grandmother, he was so traumatized by childhood poverty that he became addicted to money and guess what he does for a living? He's a big VP banker. It's a dreadful contradiction to my beliefs but I try not to judge him too harshly. He and I are like oil and water. I really do believe that there's a genetic component to any addiction and that what the substance becomes for an addict is influenced by their early life experiences. I will confess that one time I gambled ( I mean only once) when I was about 15 and it instantly became so addicting that it scared me and I never gambled again. I also lost every penny I had to my name that one time. I was instantly cured ;D

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Nothing is more boring than monomania.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Self serving loving only self - those kinds of people.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Yes and there are too many that conveniently lack a conscience. Sounds like a spiritual problem to me when people can go through life believing they don't affect anyone else.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

And look they are put in front and paraded before the public like they were something to be admired - anyone still confused as to why society is failing?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

yes lets demonize alcohol, drugs, sex, and gambling. why don't you throw rock n roll in and the movies to. you think these things would not exist if we didn't live in a capitalist society? while we have a lot of problems in our society they don't come from vice. unless you mean by keeping these things illegal we are creating a the kind of environment that moral ambiguity thrives.

[-] 0 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

LOL-I guess I would have to say that Bad Business is sometimes better than no business.However,I see no reason why bad,economically unproductive business should become the only kind we have.I guess I am biased because it is my opinion that work that involves addition of value is better than business that involves either mere dealing or charging customers for good and/or services that are actually worthless.You are right to accuse me of being judgemental,but there's no question that value added is better for the economy.

[-] 5 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

I think I know what you are saying-
building cars or painting houses is good
selling derivatives is bad
a very small number of people on wall st can become very rich
while the car builders and house painters suffer

I am not anti-capitalism
but, since the 1971 powell memo corporations have assumed the ownership of our democracy - THAT is where we must start ACTING

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Simple solutions are not going to be found.I hate and despise the kind of Capitalism we have nowadays.I don't think there is any way to stop certain people from amassing huge amounts of money,because it is in their nature to do that.There is no way to stop people from going to the other extreme of dire poverty either-for the same reason.Another problem is the question of interfering with people inheriting money from their parents.The idea of barging into a family's financial arrangements and telling them what to do makes me uncomfortable.I guess I worry alot because-"Ordinary's just not good enough today."

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

the problem is not the rich -
it is what WE let them buy

WE let them buy our democracy

everything starts with that

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

how can there be value added in an economy devoid of manufacturing even high end hand made goods? while agree our focus should not be on building casinos and strip clubs in my experience the illegality of these things or the perceived immoral nature of them is far more harmful than the vices themselves. legalize, regulate, and taxing vices actually reduces their use because the allure of danger is removed.

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Anybody can start a value added business.A shoe repair shop adds value,even a recycling business adds value in a way.Any time a worker takes materials that are worth little or nothing and works with it to make it worth more,that is what is meant by "value added"

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

don't make me laugh.

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Oh-well that is assuming there is a demand for the product which involves people who are willing-or able to pay-LOL

[-] 1 points by highlander (-163) 5 years ago

There is the saying "Too Big To Fail" I will call this issue Too Big To Deal With. Other than banning abortion, the death penalty, or the military on a nationwide scale, there is very little that the federal government can do about this problem. This can only be tackled from the bottom up. Parents talking to their children. When there is an argument, you keep your voice down while the other side raises their voice. An embracing of the ideals that formed this country, namely, the freedom to worship. It took, what, 60 years for this problem to arise? It will take 60 years to solve it.


[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 5 years ago

Feeling hopeless. Don't. Just read this: http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/a-message-to-all-the-well-meaning-democrats-and-re/ . Whether you're a democrat, republican, libertarian or a librarian, there's good news here! :)

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 5 years ago

Thank you, now please discuss epigenetics and what manipulating masses with media can do.

It's not culture btw. Culture originates with society centered on meeting needs.

Knowing needs is at the center of knowing constitutional intent. Constitutional intent is the key to Article V. Article V is the legal mechanism to alter or abolish abusive government.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

the media is an easy fall guy but are you really blaming the ills of a nation on dr. dre? are you fucking kidding me? are you suggesting other western countries are not super saturated with tales of moral ambiguity? the japanese play violent video games and live in one of the most isolated societies in the world. what about the french yeah they seem to have pretty salacious treatment of sex, hell the canadians have a murder rate half ours. they live such different lives? no the problem is the availability of high powered weapons and munitions designed to kill as many people as fast as possible. i don't think anyone is advocating banning guns. hunting rifles, shotguns, revolvers are all perfectly acceptable what is not is a semi automatic weapon with a clip and hollow point munitions. i am not opposed to a well regulated civilian militia having access to these weapons but no one needs to have an ar-15 or a 9mm with hollow point bullets on their person or in their home.

[-] -1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 5 years ago

I would also, however, make NICS accessible to all US citizens, and make "negligent private sale" a prosecutable offense; namely if a firearm is sold to someone privately and is then lost, stolen, or mishandled in a manner that causes property damage, injury, or loss of life, and the seller did not run the buyer's name through NICS (or the buyer was ineligible and the seller looked the other way) then the seller can be held civilly and criminally liable as well as the buyer.

I would also argue that nations with strong social safety nets, permissive social policies (i.e. moving away from prohibition of victimless crimes and stigmatization of nontraditional sexualities) would need fewer firearm regulations than countries with the degree of systemic inequality and severe poverty that the US has. It is my belief that most common crimes (including crimes committed with firearms) are committed in part because of poverty, despair, or mental illness, and that a substantive attempt at rebuilding our nation's economy through stimulus combined with a massive push to get people out of poverty and turn ghettoes into actual strong communities will do at least as much good as restricting firearm ownership.

As far as legal ownership of firearms is concerned, see my proposal below:

What I'd like to see us do is set up a basic 3.5-month training program over the summer following the senior year of high school providing the basic skills required to make someone an asset rather than a liability in the event of an invasion (however unlikely) or natural disaster (far more likely on a local or regional level). I'm thinking of having everyone learn basic CPR and EMT training, basic physical fitness training, exposure to disaster-like scenarios in order to teach people to keep their heads when things go to pieces, and of course firearms sense. How to shoot a gun, how to shoot a target with reasonable accuracy, how to defend yourself with a firearm (or hand-to-hand) without accidentally ventilating your walls or your neighbor or the bystanders down the street (something that was touched on earlier in a firearms thread on another forum), and so on. Successful completion of the program would lead to the issuance of a conceal-and-carry permit valid for one or two handguns as well as a possession license for long guns (shotguns, hunting rifles, etc.) After the program is completed people would remain "on reserve" for a period of years ("on reserve" meaning a couple days a month of training and the possibility of standing in for or assisting the National Guard if something happens).

As far as implementation is concerned, I'd write the mandate and minimum training standards into federal law, then redirect funding from the current DOD budget to the National Guard on the state level and earmark it for the creation of civilian summer training programs.

The programs themselves would be the responsibility of the state National Guard units, which would be given the funding and authority to open local and regional training facilities such that physical proximity to training locations would not present undue hardship for anyone wishing to go. Ideally, the program would begin in the middle of May and wrap up by late August, allowing completion of training immediately following secondary education (although people of all ages and experience levels would be welcome, from high school students wishing to participate in JROTC to middle-aged men and women).

Participation would be almost universally open (although standard rules for conscientious objectors would apply, and people with felony convictions would be banned), and the exact standards to be met for a person to be considered to have successfully completed the program would be left up to the states (although there would be federally set minimum standards and a federally enforceable obligation on the states not to arbitrarily set standards ridiculously high to de facto restrict gun ownership). Furthermore, failing the firearms part of the course would mean not receiving firearms licenses (although it would be acceptable to repeat the course as many times as necessary to obtain licenses).

Basically, once people successfully complete their initial training with the National Guard they would then become part of an informal home guard. They wouldn't have police or military authority, but they would be responsible for handling accidents or disasters until the relevant authorities (police, fire, EMT, National Guard proper, etc.) showed up, and in case of severe disasters they could be asked to stand alongside the National Guard units. They would be responsible for going to a couple of training days a month up until the age of 45, but they would not be available for domestic or foreign deployment, not subject to the UCMJ, and so on. They would in fact be a true citizen response force, and neither I nor anyone else I can think of would have a problem with them being quite well-armed.

As for the training facilities, during the eight or nine months out of the year they're not employed in training they would be kept on an absolute skeleton staff except for the days in which they'd be used for training exercises (mostly home guard people, but there's no reason not to have joint exercises with the National Guard).

[-] -2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago