Roseburg - home town of Don Alm

139 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Reading about the latest in the never ending shooting sagas coming from the U.S. reminded me of the old Warrior Don (midasman09).

He used to be on here all the time, but I guess the never ending knockers finally got to him, as I haven't heard from him for ages.

Anyway, back to the shootings, we had ours at Port Arthur, whereupon the prime minister John Howard introduced new stringent gun laws - not a shooting since.

When will you guys ever learn?
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    I predict this thread will end up as a microcosm of what's going to happen in the real world.

    The pro-gun lobby will claim that this illustrates the need for more guns.

    The anti-gun lobby will claim that this illustrates the need for less guns.

    Meanwhile the rest of the world scratches their heads in bewilderment

    Then the debate will die down as everyone becomes obsessed with whatever shiny object the media is running with.

    Until the next event of this nature (and there WILL be another one), then the cycle starts all over again.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10311044].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      He used to be on here all the time, but I guess the never ending knockers finally got to him, as I haven't heard from him for ages.
      He's listed as "banned" so doubtful we'll hear from him under that name.

      Weird
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10311473].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      I predict this thread will end up as a microcosm of what's going to happen in the real world.

      The pro-gun lobby will claim that this illustrates the need for more guns.

      The anti-gun lobby will claim that this illustrates the need for less guns.

      Meanwhile the rest of the world scratches their heads in bewilderment

      Then the debate will die down as everyone becomes obsessed with whatever shiny object the media is running with.

      Until the next event of this nature (and there WILL be another one), then the cycle starts all over again.
      And no matter what happens the government and it's agencies will continue to have guns and will continue to kill innocent people here and abroad. Why was there no outrage and a call for stricter gun control laws on the government after they gave guns to Mexican drug cartels which where used to shoot Americans? Why no outrage or even coverage on the evening news when a U.S. drone killed innocent people in Yemen wedding party?
      People talk about leading by example, well that's what our government does but when someone follows their example the whole world is outraged and calls for responsible gun owners to turn in their guns.
      Our government kills innocent people everyday but is outraged when someone else does the same thing? Hypocrites and the same goes for the anti-gun crowd that is outraged over this shooting, but not the ones carried out by the government they support.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10311807].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        And no matter what happens the government and it's agencies will continue to have guns and will continue to kill innocent people here and abroad. Why was there no outrage and a call for stricter gun control laws on the government after they gave guns to Mexican drug cartels which where used to shoot Americans? Why no outrage or even coverage on the evening news when a U.S. drone killed innocent people in Yemen wedding party?
        People talk about leading by example, well that's what our government does but when someone follows their example the whole world is outraged and calls for responsible gun owners to turn in their guns.
        Our government kills innocent people everyday but is outraged when someone else does the same thing? Hypocrites and the same goes for the anti-gun crowd that is outraged over this shooting, but not the ones carried out by the government they support.
        In his Bowling For Columbine documentary, Michael Moore raised the same issues that you addressed. Why were the people of the town so shocked at what happened when the biggest employer there is Lockheed Martin, a major supplier of military hardware. There seemed to be a massive disconnect between what a lot of the parents did for a living, and what the two misfits did at the school. Irrespective of what anyone thinks of Moore, that was a very valid point.

        Ultimately though, guns, weapons and armaments are big business. They generate huge tax revenues for the government, and they employ millions of people, who also pay taxes.

        Probably the most qualified person ever to comment on this subject, both as as a Five Star General, and P.O.T.U.S. had this to say:


        As long as all those jobs, profits and taxes are being generated, the arms (from hand guns to nukes) industry isn't going anywhere.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10311863].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          In his Bowling For Columbine documentary, Michael Moore raised the same issues that you addressed. Why were the people of the town so shocked at what happened when the biggest employer there is Lockheed Martin, a major supplier of military hardware. There seemed to be a massive disconnect between what a lot of the parents did for a living, and what the two misfits did at the school. Irrespective of what anyone thinks of Moore, that was a very valid point.

          Ultimately though, guns, weapons and armaments are big business. They generate huge tax revenues for the government, and they employ millions of people, who also pay taxes.

          Probably the most qualified person ever to comment on this subject, both as as a Five Star General, and P.O.T.U.S. had this to say:

          Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube

          As long as all those jobs, profits and taxes are being generated, the arms (from hand guns to nukes) industry isn't going anywhere.
          It will take me some time to give an intelligent reply to this. I have to get over the shock of thinking in the same vain as Moore
          It is the truth though.
          This latest killing spree is something I wish didn't happen. But I'm more upset over the people screaming for gun control (that we already have) while they're silent over the killing spree our government has been on. Especially when these are the same people that hate anyone that disagrees with them and say shit like "they should be shot".
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10311998].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            I think the local law enforcement there is smarter than the average bird.

            In his press conference the sheriff (?) refused to refer to the shooter by name - refused to discuss the shooter's motives or anything else.

            Seems every time we've had one of these shootings we look at the photos - read the rambling fB posts - hav people who know the perp talking about him and "what he went through".

            Public recognition - fame, if you will - plays a part in these shootings. Take the attention away - don't make these criminals important by giving them 15 mins of fame.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312122].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              I think the local law enforcement there is smarter than the average bird.

              In his press conference the sheriff (?) refused to refer to the shooter by name - refused to discuss the shooter's motives or anything else.

              Seems every time we've had one of these shootings we look at the photos - read the rambling fB posts - hav people who know the perp talking about him and "what he went through".

              Public recognition - fame, if you will - plays a part in these shootings. Take the attention away - don't make these criminals important by giving them 15 mins of fame.
              If I had my way, I wouldn't give these events any media coverage at all. Of course, this is just a theory and not sure how it won't be reported, but just because the First amendment gives freedom of speech to the media, it doesn't mean the media has to report it.


              I'm fairly convinced these are mostly copycat crimes. When one postal worker went postal, there were a string of similar crimes with postal workers.


              After Columbine, there's been a series of school shootings. After Aurora, there's been a series of theater shootings.


              Stop showing these idiots what to do.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312183].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author yukon
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                If I had my way, I wouldn't give these events any media coverage at all.
                Exactly...
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312185].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                If I had my way, I wouldn't give these events any media coverage at all.
                And if they do get any coverage, call them what they are - acts of terrorism.
                Signature
                Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                So that blind people can hate them as well.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312449].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                  Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                  And if they do get any coverage, call them what they are - acts of terrorism.

                  Exactly. This was religious terrorism. He asked them if they were Christian, and those who said yes were shot in the head. What we have to realize is that we have a religious war brewing in the US - same one that is going on globally. We also have people who have armed guards flanking them whenever they're in public, and even guarding their homes that are calling for gun control when they've been allowing anyone on earth with any kinds of weapons whatsoever cross our borders, and are, as Thom stated, also guilty of actually actively arming criminals.

                  Yet it's WE who are law abiding and would be defenseless who are told to give up our guns in times of great political turmoil. They dont' care one rat if we get killed - they are only worried about themselves. Where are the media when it becomes time to note the statistics that prove 100% that the real danger to people is "gun free zones" - which is where all the criminals and nutcases go to shoot because they're guaranteed that nobody can shoot back.

                  1. - You don't have the right to determine our laws for us. We, as far as we have been informed by our owners, are still a sovereign nation.
                  2. We didn't have problems 50 years ago when people were allowed to raise their kids as they saw fit without gov interference - or when our population wasn't being purposefully drugged out of their minds - which also makes me wonder -- where is the outrage that between 100,000 and a quarter mil of our people are dying of prescription drugs every year. Where's the outrage? That's a lot of people being destroyed merely for profit.
                  3. Switzerland and Israel both have armed citizens - go tell them to drop their guns for a change. What? They aren't killing each other? Then what is the real problem over here. If there are countries that handle guns without mass murderers, then why don't we address the problem instead of the guns.
                  4. Our country is going toward fascism so fast that we have a very good right to be scared crapless of our own violently aggressive government. How many hundreds of millions have been killed via gov in the last 100 years? Our government allows the medical corporations to kill us via drugging, it allows food corporations to poison us -- yet these are people we can trust to not murder us just like every other fascist regime has done to their citizens over the last century? You really think our gov is that special? Go ask any country we've invaded over the last 50 years if they think our government is sweet and caring.

                  You can make all the noise you want about us having guns. You are talking via emotion and not logic -- and statistics, if you dig further than FB for them, show that you are WRONG. But - it's not your business what our laws are anyway and really should be concentrating on all the deep shyte that's going on in your own country right now. You really think we're gonna bring OUR guns in when you get in trouble because you gave up yours? You better start getting with the program on that one.
                  Signature

                  Sal
                  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                  Beyond the Path

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313564].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    I don't agree there were no problems 50 years ago - there have always been mass killers...we just tend to forget about them as time passes. School shootings are relatively new and there is one woman who takes partial credit for them...rather chilling storing...1979

                    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/just...icle-1.1504277

                    Mass killings used to be more common in the workplace than in schools...maybe something to do with children growing up too fast or expecting too much at an early age? Don't know but could find some interesting questions if you think about it.

                    Top 10 Young Killers - Listverse



                    8 killed - August 20, 1982 - In Miami, 51-year-old history teacher Carl Robert Brown, angry about a repair bill and armed with a shotgun, kills eight people at a machine shop. He flees by bicycle, but is shot in the back by a witness who pursued him. He was on leave from school for psychological treatment.

                    8 killed - July 1, 1993 - In San Francisco, 55-year-old Gian Luigi Ferri kills eight people in a law office and then kills himself.

                    23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 35-year-old George Hennard crashes his pickup truck through the wall of a Lubys Cafeteria. After exiting the truck, Hennard shoots and kills 23 people. He then commits suicide.


                    21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California, 41-year-old James Huberty, armed with a long-barreled Uzi, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun shoots and kills 21 adults and children at a local McDonalds. A police sharpshooter kills Huberty one hour after the rampage begins.

                    18 killed - August 1, 1966 - In Austin, Texas, Charles Joseph Whitman, a former U.S. Marine, kills 16 and wounds at least 30 while shooting from a University of Texas tower. Police officers Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy shoot and kill Whitman in the tower. Whitman had also killed his mother and wife earlier in the day.

                    14 killed - August 20, 1986 - Edmond, Oklahoma, part-time mail carrier, Patrick Henry Sherrill, armed with three handguns kills 14 postal workers in 10 minutes and then takes his own life with a bullet to the head.

                    13 killed - February 18, 1983 - Three men enter the Wah Mee gambling and social club in Seattle, rob the 14 occupants and then shoot each in the head, killing 13. Two of the men, Kwan Fai Mak and Benjamin Ng, are convicted of murder in August 1983. Both are serving life in prison. The third, Wai-Chiu "Tony" Ng, after years on the run in Canada, is eventually convicted of first-degree robbery and second-degree assault. He is deported to Hong Kong in 2014.

                    13 killed - September 25, 1982 - In Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, 40-year-old George Banks, a prison guard, kills 13 people including five of his own children. In September 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturns his death sentence stating that Banks is mentally incompetent.

                    13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 28-year-old Howard Unruh, a veteran of World War II, shoots and kills 13 people as he walks down Camden's 32nd Street. His weapon of choice is a German-crafted Luger pistol. He is found insane and is committed to a state mental institution. He dies at the age of 88.

                    9 killed - June 18, 1990 - In Jacksonville, Florida, 42-year-old James Pough, angry about his car being repossessed, opens fire at a General Motors Acceptance Corp. office, killing nine people. Pough takes his own life.
                    Not a new phenomenon at all - but you wonder if the notoriety and chance of fame and "getting even" pushes some of the people over the edge...or if they would have eventually gone over that edge anyway.
                    Signature
                    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                    ***
                    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313621].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                      I don't agree there were no problems 50 years ago - there have always been mass killers...

                      Not a new phenomenon at all - but you wonder if the notoriety and chance of fame and "getting even" pushes some of the people over the edge...or if they would have eventually gone over that edge anyway.
                      I agree. To call this a religious thing is only looking at one part of this guy's profile. Sure, he hated organized religion, but he was also schooled in a school for Asperger's and Autistics and has all of the profile of the Aspberger's Syndrome, like Lanza and like Elliott ... he decried his virginity and lack of friends. Said his life wasn't worth living due to the loneliness. Blamed women for not wanting him (who would really?).

                      The answer is more guns and hookers. Give all these creepy Aspberger's hookers and everyone gets a free gun. Can't get much worse than it already is.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313639].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                        The answer is more guns and hookers. Give all these creepy Aspberger's hookers and everyone gets a free gun. Can't get much worse than it already is.
                        Suzanne;

                        I don't know if more guns are really going to help. I like the hooker idea though.
                        Signature
                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313683].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                          Suzanne;

                          I don't know if more guns are really going to help. I like the hooker idea though.
                          You should at least have Hookers around to say: "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me"
                          Signature

                          Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313703].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                            You should at least have Hookers around to say: "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me"
                            Or in your case, "Oh, I see you aren't pleased to see me"
                            Signature
                            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                            What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313712].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                              Or in your case, "Oh, I see you aren't pleased to see me"
                              That's because I keep mine Half Cocked.
                              Signature

                              Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313719].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                        I agree. To call this a religious thing is only looking at one part of this guy's profile. Sure, he hated organized religion, but he was also schooled in a school for Asperger's and Autistics and has all of the profile of the Aspberger's Syndrome, like Lanza and like Elliott ... he decried his virginity and lack of friends. Said his life wasn't worth living due to the loneliness. Blamed women for not wanting him (who would really?).

                        The answer is more guns and hookers. Give all these creepy Aspberger's hookers and everyone gets a free gun. Can't get much worse than it already is.


                        I wrote that when I was ticked off. You are right, we're not actually at religious war yet - it's coming on fast, though. I just get ticked off when people from other countries decide on an event like this what our rights should be. They don't know anything about daily life in the US.

                        Actually - our over all gun crime rate has dropped in recent years except in places where there are gun laws. Look at Chicago. That cesspool is responsible on its own for putting us ahead of 50 other countries for gun crime - and guns aren't allowed there.

                        What should be understood is that our society is breaking down and we have masses of criminals with guns. When you take normal people's guns, they are sitting ducks here.

                        We also have rampant mental illness. Our people are being chemically poisoned out of their gords. The killers in these shootings are not "normal" people. How do you stop the mentally ill from getting guns? You can't. Every criminal on the planet can get an illegal gun. Anyone can. I could go out and buy one off the street today if I wanted to.

                        What some people don't understand is that also, 62% of our gun deaths are suicides. Take out the mentally hopeless and our placement among other countries for gun crime drops half way down the list. Is anyone really so delusional that they think that a person that wants to kill him/herself won't do it if they don't have a gun in their hand? What we have there isn't a gun problem - it's a social problem. Taking guns would only change the "cause" stats, not the suicides. Incidentally - the stats also don't state how many guns were successfully used

                        To get every gun out of the US would mean a search of every home, every inch of land - and closing our borders. We all know how people scream we're bigots if we go to close a border. It would also take a Hiltlertarian act to do such a search. Can you even imagine what our government would have come to if it were authorized to pull such a search and confiscation? Do you really think a government that Fascist would be safe for an unarmed citizenry? Really? History shows our gov is aggressive and dangerous - and people from other countries want to see us live under it unarmed? Thanks folks. We like you, too.

                        Remember our first school shooting. Peaceful protest, unarmed protesters. It was called KENT State. Our gov was the mad shooter leveling people without guns because they didn't agree with a war and were legally and peacefully protesting. But..........we're not supposed to remember that one.

                        Our problems are open borders with criminals and guns coming over daily -- parents under threat of jail for raising their kids as they see fit. Indoctrination instead of education. Poverty. Hopelessness. Community disintegration. Family disintegration. Chemical toxins that cause cognitive problems. People that no longer care about anything but how much money they can make. Rampant consumerism as a main value. Corruption on all levels, and in all bureaus of government, corporations, and financial institutions. Usurption of individual rights. Population density. Political correctness.

                        Until you live here and understand the layers of breakdown, you will not understand anything but "oh no, someone got shot".
                        Signature

                        Sal
                        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                        Beyond the Path

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316762].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                    4. Our country is going toward fascism so fast that we have a very good right to be scared crapless of our own violently aggressive government. How many hundreds of millions have been killed via gov in the last 100 years? Our government allows the medical corporations to kill us via drugging, it allows food corporations to poison us -- yet these are people we can trust to not murder us just like every other fascist regime has done to their citizens over the last century? You really think our gov is that special? Go ask any country we've invaded over the last 50 years if they think our government is sweet and caring.

                    You can make all the noise you want about us having guns. You are talking via emotion and not logic -- and statistics, if you dig further than FB for them, show that you are WRONG. But - it's not your business what our laws are anyway and really should be concentrating on all the deep shyte that's going on in your own country right now. You really think we're gonna bring OUR guns in when you get in trouble because you gave up yours? You better start getting with the program on that one.
                    Yes, and Europe is headed there even faster. We are being moved towards the brink of something none of us wants. How do we stop it?

                    It may be too late.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313668].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                    3. Switzerland and Israel both have armed citizens - go tell them to drop their guns for a change. What? They aren't killing each other? Then what is the real problem over here. If there are countries that handle guns without mass murderers, then why don't we address the problem instead of the guns.
                    I'm only going to respond to this part of your post as it is the only section that does not cover your country. As I said in my first post in this thread stated, the pro-gun guys will have their say, the anti-gun guys will have their say. Nothing will be resolved, and then in a few months time, when the next incident happens, the same thing will happen all over again. I will say no more in regards to the American situation.

                    However on the Swiss and Israeli situations I will have a say as your comment on them, while correct, is somewhat misleading.

                    Firstly neither Israelis nor the Swiss have a constitutional right to "bear arms".

                    Secondly both countries have mandatory military service for all citizens as soon as they turn 18.

                    Israelis have guns simply because of their geographic location. The Swiss have them because they are allowed to take the weapons they're issued with in their military service home with them.

                    Thirdly, neither of these countries have anywhere near the rate of gun murders that America does, so you cannot use them as an example either way.

                    For your reference here are the gun laws for Israel and Switzerland.

                    On the second part of your comment as to why neither of these two, or any other country has the gun violence rates as America, perhaps (I said perhaps, not definitely) it's because none of them pumps out as many movies and TV shows that glorify gun use
                    Signature
                    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                    So that blind people can hate them as well.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314480].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                If I had my way, I wouldn't give these events any media coverage at all. Of course, this is just a theory and not sure how it won't be reported, but just because the First amendment gives freedom of speech to the media, it doesn't mean the media has to report it.


                I'm fairly convinced these are mostly copycat crimes. When one postal worker went postal, there were a string of similar crimes with postal workers.

                After Columbine, there's been a series of school shootings. After Aurora, there's been a series of theater shootings.

                Stop showing these idiots what to do.
                The day the media stops covering school shootings or any mass shootings is the day you open the door for the government to send in people to break up a protest and kill people and call it a "school shooting."

                Censoring the media is the worst thing you can do.

                The Kent State shootings (also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre)[1][2][3] occurred at Kent State University in the US city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[4][5]

                Some of the students who were shot had been protesting the Cambodian Campaign, which President Richard Nixon announced during a television address on April 30. Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[6][7]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312947].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  The day the media stops covering school shootings or any mass shootings is the day you open the door for the government to send in people to break up a protest and kill people and call it a "school shooting."

                  Censoring the media is the worst thing you can do.



                  First, I said it was theory and not sure how it would work in reality. But you will never convince me that these aren't copy cats and doing what they have seen done before.


                  Second, I never said to censor the media.To repeat, just because the media has the right to freedom of speech doesn't mean they have to use it. It would be their choice, not the government's, which isn't censorship. Freedom of speech is also having the right to NOT report something. Forcing the media to report something also has First Amendment issues.


                  Also consider, the media can report these crimes, but do they really have to dedicate so much of their broadcasts to these events? I've watched news channels where they pretty much cover the event 24/7 for days on end. Do they have to mention the killer's name over and over and show pictures of them?
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313056].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                    Also consider, the media can report these crimes, but do they really have to dedicate so much of their broadcasts to these events? I've watched news channels were they pretty much cover the event 24/7 for days on end. Do they have to mention the killer's name over and over and show pictures of them?
                    No, they don't have to but they're the media and that's what the media does. They're in it to attract consumers and to make money. Apparently, enough people like the sensational stories that it makes it worth their while to air them to the max.

                    Yeah ... there's more media, there's more people, there's more guns, there's more mental illness, there's lunatics on 4chan cheering the guy on and inciting violence in the name of Freedom of Speech, and there's more ramien noodles.

                    I just turn off the TV or don't read the news when I've had enough of a story, which is what I prefer over a media blackout, whether forced or voluntary. I prefer to read a lot of news and know what's going on in this country.

                    Three of these guys were so similar in mental illness and anger over their mental illness, do you really think that once they were filled with rage, they couldn't figure out ... get guns ... kill people ... all on their own? I have no doubt they could figure that out and act on it.

                    He was a member of a group called betas ... as opposed to Alpha males .. the rejected ones, like like Elliot Roger, who was filled with rage that women weren't attracted to him. As if any woman would be attracted to these mentally ill, socially awkward, deeply disturbed individuals. But they blame society and the women for their problems.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313158].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              I think the local law enforcement there is smarter than the average bird.

              In his press conference the sheriff (?) refused to refer to the shooter by name - refused to discuss the shooter's motives or anything else.

              Seems every time we've had one of these shootings we look at the photos - read the rambling fB posts - hav people who know the perp talking about him and "what he went through".

              Public recognition - fame, if you will - plays a part in these shootings. Take the attention away - don't make these criminals important by giving them 15 mins of fame.
              The local law enforcement (the sheriff) is also part a group of local sheriffs that sent letters in 2013 to the VPOTUS stating that they would not enforce any unconstitutional national guns laws etc.

              Orgeon Shooting: Sheriff Won't Comment on Gun Control Letter

              Read the Anti-Gun Control Letter Oregon Sheriff Sent in 2013

              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313245].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                The local law enforcement (the sheriff) is also part a group of local sheriffs that sent letters in 2013 to the VPOTUS stating that they would not enforce any unconstitutional national guns laws etc.
                I believe such letters were in response to a query from the Federal government.
                Signature

                "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313261].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  Biz - you highlight something that I think is a huge - and largely ignored - part of these mass shootings.

                  We've always had people who were mentally weak (this person had not been diagnosed as mentally ILL) - who have low self esteem and are socially awkward. Unhappy young people is not new - anger is not new - but these shooting have been increasing since Coumbine.

                  What is NEW? Unlimited internet access. Unfiltered internet conversations. Bragging to people you don't know - who tell you how smart and brave and entitled you are. What is impossible in your mind becomes a probability when dozens of people who don't know you and don't care - egg you on to do something vicious and big. When you are told you'll be famous and you talk to people who idolize previous killers....it bends weak minds.

                  This is the third leg of this problem and I think it's one we can't ignore. It is definitely a contributing factor but I'm not sure what can be done about it.
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                  ***
                  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313280].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

                  I believe such letters were in response to a query from the Federal government.
                  That may be true and in any event this was his and others response - which IMHO should be noted.

                  I wonder what he would deem UNconstitutional?

                  - Assault weapons ban?

                  - Closing the gun show loophole?

                  - Reducing the size of clips?

                  - Tighter controls on the mentally disturbed?

                  - Background checks on all potential gun purchasers?
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313293].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    That may be true and in any event this was his and others response - which IMHO should be noted.

                    I wonder what he would deem UNconstitutional?

                    - Assault weapons ban?

                    - Closing the gun show loophole?

                    - Reducing the size of clips?

                    - Tighter controls on the mentally disturbed?

                    - Background checks on all gun purchasers?
                    Those are all good questions.

                    I'm trying to recall, but it seems to me the query was reported to me by a local, reliable source.

                    It was alarming to law enforcement because it seemed like the Federal government was contemplating
                    running around the Second Amendment (banning and confiscating guns), which is why the Second
                    Amendment really exists.

                    Dan
                    Signature

                    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313340].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

                      Those are all good questions.

                      I'm trying to recall, but it seems to me the query was reported to me by a local, reliable source.

                      It was alarming to law enforcement because it seemed like the Federal government was contemplating
                      running around the Second Amendment (banning and confiscating guns), which is why the Second
                      Amendment really exists.

                      Dan
                      I can see the feds trying to ban certain guns but I'm sure the owners would be grandfathered but I doubt the feds would seriously entertain actually confiscating already purchased guns.

                      We both know that all hell would break loose - and the feds know it also.
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313354].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    That may be true and in any event this was his and others response - which IMHO should be noted.

                    I wonder what he would deem UNconstitutional?

                    - Assault weapons ban?

                    - Closing the gun show loophole?

                    - Reducing the size of clips?

                    - Tighter controls on the mentally disturbed?

                    - Background checks on all potential gun purchasers?
                    The NYS Safe act covers most all of those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act
                    The three cities around me have not seen any decrease in gun violence. After a Cuomo aide was gunned down in NYC, caught in a cross fire between two rival gangs, Cuomo admitted as much by saying it's not his fault but the federal govts. fault.
                    It has caused gun manufacturing companies located in NY to leave though so it has accomplished lost jobs and revenue for the sate.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313470].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FusRoMwah
    I live about 40 minutes away from Roseburg. In fact, I'm donating blood in a few hours because hospitals are critically low on type O blood.

    President Obama was right. We aren't the only country that faces extremity and violence, but we are the only country where theses shootings are becoming routine.

    It isn't about the gun control, it's about the humanity. We need more research and affordable access to mental health care and services. We need more public awareness about these types of issues and what we can do for our loved ones who are afflicted with bipolar, depression, anxiety, and other lonely mental diseases.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10311717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Many of these mass shootings are committed by mentally ill. There's 3 (Lanza, Rogers and this one now) that are linked to perps with Aspberger's Syndrome, and yet, this one had 13 guns, Lanza had a boat load of them and Rogers had his share, although he also used a knife. The one in the movie theater in Colorado was under a shrink's care at the University he went to. Jared Lee Loughner, the one who shot the Congresswoman was clearly insane. And on and on.

    There is no solution. The mentally ill have the same access to guns that both the criminals and the law abiding citizens do. As long as they do, these shootings will continue. This guy went to a school for people with mental disabilities (Autism and Aspberger's, etc.) But he was able to purchase and register those guns. One or two was registered to "someone else" ... most likely his mother.

    But Obama is right ... this is becoming commonplace. When the news came on, I went outside and mentioned it to my brother and his friend, who were working on rebuilding an engine on a truck. They didn't skip a beat in their work. Didn't bat an eyelash. I wasn't very shocked either. Just mentioned it in passing. Hey guys ... another school shooting today.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312212].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rondo
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312399].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by rondo View Post

        But other countries have mental illness without these levels of gun violence so there must be more to it.

        Andrew
        I have no idea what other countries mentally ill do for fun and games. Don't know and don't care. I live in the US and nothing is going to change here, so it's another day, another mass shooting. Mentally ill and want to buy 14 guns? Not a problem. NRA's answer to gun violence is to arm everybody ... so let's just fu*&ing shoot it out and see who's left standing.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312404].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      Many of these mass shootings are committed by mentally ill. There's 3 (Lanza, Rogers and this one now) that are linked to perps with Aspberger's Syndrome, and yet, this one had 13 guns, Lanza had a boat load of them and Rogers had his share, although he also used a knife. The one in the movie theater in Colorado was under a shrink's care at the University he went to. Jared Lee Loughner, the one who shot the Congresswoman was clearly insane. And on and on.

      There is no solution. The mentally ill have the same access to guns that both the criminals and the law abiding citizens do. As long as they do, these shootings will continue. This guy went to a school for people with mental disabilities (Autism and Aspberger's, etc.) But he was able to purchase and register those guns. One or two was registered to "someone else" ... most likely his mother.

      But Obama is right ... this is becoming commonplace. When the news came on, I went outside and mentioned it to my brother and his friend, who were working on rebuilding an engine on a truck. They didn't skip a beat in their work. Didn't bat an eyelash. I wasn't very shocked either. Just mentioned it in passing. Hey guys ... another school shooting today.

      Yes, they are mentally ill. And there have been mentally ill people and guns for the entire history of this country. However, these types of mass shootings are fairly recent. Yes, there's a couple of exceptions, but nothing like the frequency we are seeing now.


      Something has changed, and in my opinion that is, as there are more of these events, there is also more media coverage of these events. It's a cycle that feeds on itself...more mass killings => more media coverage => more mass killings => more media coverage.


      30 or so years ago there were no 24 hour cable news stations that had to come up with enough programming to fill 24 hours. There was no Internet (as we know it today) with social media.


      IMO, all of this leads to "monkey see, monkey do" with an increasing number of mentally ill people believing this is what you do when you're angry. If TV doesn't influence people, we better tell all of those successful companies that have spent trillions of advertising trying to influence people that they've been wasting their money.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313073].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Where I used to live, perps, er alleged perps, never got publicity.
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10312614].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313246].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    If you see a thread like Suzanne posted, you should report it to the authorities and they should
    start tracing. It seems like these type of shooters telegraph their intentions enough that it would not be a waste of time.
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313252].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      If you see a thread like Suzanne posted, you should report it to the authorities and they should start tracing
      I agree with this wholeheartedly, however if the authorities were alerted, would they investigate it? If so, would they get there in time?

      I'd like to think the answer to both of these questions is yes, however...
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314399].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    FYI...


    Oregon Sheriff John Hanlin Posted Sandy Hook Truther Video on Facebook

    I think I heard someone deleted this on Friday but someone else had already captured it before its deletion.

    Like wow.




    Oregon sheriff John Hanlin posted Sandy Hook truther video on Facebook.

    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10313435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Originally Posted by peter_act View Post

    Anyway, back to the shootings, we had ours at Port Arthur, whereupon the prime minister John Howard introduced new stringent gun laws - not a shooting since.

    When will you guys ever learn?
    Peter ... rather than tell you that you don't have a right to voice your opinion on the US and their gun laws because you aren't a citizen, I'm going to give you my answer.

    There is no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform its gun laws. If the bloody bullet riddled bodies of 20 young school kids isn't enough to do it, nothing will. The NRA owns our politicians ... bought and paid for. They are the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers and their greed is limitless and they have no conscience whatsoever.

    It's pointless to even talk about any small measure of gun control in the US, although the topic comes up every time there is a mass killing, which is pretty often, but soon forgotten, until the next one.

    There is no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform its gun laws

    Oregon is one of the states that passed a bill to allow concealed carry on campus, so the gunman was within his rights to conceal and carry those weapons onto that campus. And that Sheriff that is putting his face in the news in Oregon now ... that insidious little fool created a "truther" video after the Sandy Hook massacre of 20 children. He said that the "parents" of the dead children that were being interviewed by the media were "actors." Right. All I have to say about him is "live by the sword and die by the sword bitch."

    What will happen after this massacre, as with all of our massacres, is some politicians will talk about some measure of gun controls ... like background checks on all purchasers of guns, closing the gun show loophole, smaller magazine sizes, etc .... and the gun crazy will flock to the stores to buy up even more guns and ammo. These tragedies are a financial boon for the gun manufacturers ... they love them. Sales soar after a massacre.

    Oregon shooting: In 2015, U.S. states pushed for more guns on campus - Fortune

    While details are still developing about how the gunman at Umpqua--who was one of the 10 killed--planned and executed his assault, one that's emerged is that when he entered the college campus armed with six guns, it was within his legal rights to do so.

    Oregon law allows the carrying of concealed weapons on public college campuses. That law is the result of a court decision in 2011 that kept public colleges from banning firearms on campus. Public schools can bar guns from specific settings--classrooms, dormitories, and sports stadiums--but not from the campus outright.

    Oregon's leniency toward guns on campus is relatively unique in the U.S. All but nine states either ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus or leave the decision to bar or allow on-campus firearms to the college or university, according to data collected by The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus, a group that aims to disarm schools.

    Oregon--along with Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, Texas, and Wisconsin--have provisions that allow the carrying of concealed weapons on public campuses. And this year, lawmakers in several states launched multiple efforts to follow suit.

    In 2015, legislators in 15 states introduced 22 bills that called for a loosening of gun restrictions on college campuses, according to The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus. By comparison, there was just one bill introduced that would make it tougher to carry a firearm on a college campus. The measure, introduced in California, would prohibit any concealed carry permit holder from bringing a weapon on a public or private college campus without permission from campus officials. It passed both houses of the state legislature and was submitted to Governor Jerry Brown for signature in early September.

    The pro-gun bills that state legislatures considered this year are indicative of a push by the gun lobby to open up another market of potential gun owners--college students.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314304].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314331].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rondo
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314416].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Did you read all the text in the thread Suzanne posted? It didn't make sense - part way through it was hard to tell why the OP was posting what he was (IF that was the OP).

        Even if reported - what can authorities do? If they move against someone - they are called out for violating "rights". There are not enough authorities in the country to keep up with the messes on social media and online chats.

        The man who went FOR the gunman (and was shot 7 times) knew what to do - but didn't have a weapon. Most who think they want to carry a weapon wouldn't know what to do in a crisis. No matter which way you argue on a case like this, you run into quagmires - there are no easy, clear, acceptable answers.

        I don't like the constant US bashing of some people - but on an event like this I can understand why the rest of the world wonders what we are doing wrong here. Other countries have freedom of speech without this kind of repeating tragedy - maybe we can learn from them. Other countries permit guns without this kind of repeating tragedy - what are they doing that we aren't?
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314466].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Did you read all the text in the thread Suzanne posted? It didn't make sense - part way through it was hard to tell why the OP was posting what he was (IF that was the OP).

          Even if reported - what can authorities do?
          The FBI is investigating that thread and if warranted, some of those who posted on that thread, may find themselves in jail for inciting violence. If just one person had shown that thread to the FBI, they would have investigated and they might have been in time to place a law enforcement presence at that school.

          Of course some of that thread made no sense ... not to sane, logical people anyway. Reddit and 4Chan are inhabited by subhuman low lifes ... the very worst that society has to offer.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314482].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            The Swiss have them because they are allowed to take the weapons they're issued with in their military service home with them.
            That service also includes physiologic evaluation and they are only allowed to take their gun home if they are mentally sound.
            Meanwhile not to be out done by a guy in Oregon the government people think ought to enact stricter gun laws on it's citizens does this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...876_story.html
            Where's the outrage? How come nobodies calling for stricter gun control for them?
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314503].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          I agree with this wholeheartedly, however if the authorities were alerted, would they investigate it? If so, would they get there in time?

          I'd like to think the answer to both of these questions is yes, however...
          The reporting person might have to keep pressure on the authorities. County Sheriff's in a lot of
          US states have a lot of pull and these are elected positions, so there is that angle. Police Chiefs
          are usually appointed.

          It's hard if no crime has been committed - maybe need to add some teeth to laws, or change police procedures about keeping an eye on someone showing the signs....(Actually, I think procedural changes and national data base changes are under way. I was pulled over once because my plates came up as expired. Apparently
          Department of Motor Vehicles had not updated to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) database that law enforcement uses.)

          I had a crazy guest - Viet Nam vet with PTSD. He caused quite a ruckus/made threats during his two days in town. Before I was aware how bad he was, he had made arrangements to stay at another hotel because he had already decided he did not like us. At the time there were some random shootings/murders near his hometown of Fort Collins (90 miles from me). I did report all his behavior, description, name, address, vehicle/plate, and dog, to local and Fort Collins authorities.

          The local deputy had come into contact with the guy at the other hotel (he accused them of stealing his
          security deposit). The deputy told me he's been in law enforcement for 15 years and thought the guy was off, but not off enough to randomly shoot people. The other town had a tip line set up for the random murders - a bicyclist, and a jogger. I called that number at least three times as more news
          came out - they at least have information in case there begins to be more data that matches.

          There is also information from the local law enforcement in a centralized data base that law enforcement in the other town should access if the guy gets on the radar (probably again) up there.

          The Columbine shooting did change the way law enforcement responds to such shootings. They did not rush into Columbine because they were not sure how many shooters, etc... Now they do tend to
          charge in and take down the shooter(s).


          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Did you read all the text in the thread Suzanne posted? It didn't make sense - part way through it was hard to tell why the OP was posting what he was (IF that was the OP).

          Even if reported - what can authorities do? If they move against someone - they are called out for violating "rights". There are not enough authorities in the country to keep up with the messes on social media and online chats.

          The man who went FOR the gunman (and was shot 7 times) knew what to do - but didn't have a weapon. Most who think they want to carry a weapon wouldn't know what to do in a crisis. No matter which way you argue on a case like this, you run into quagmires - there are no easy, clear, acceptable answers.

          I don't like the constant US bashing of some people - but on an event like this I can understand why the rest of the world wonders what we are doing wrong here. Other countries have freedom of speech without this kind of repeating tragedy - maybe we can learn from them. Other countries permit guns without this kind of repeating tragedy - what are they doing that we aren't?
          Good question at the end there, Kay. What are they doing that we aren't? Success does leave a trail, bench marks.

          I'd improve the mental health system in the US.

          Also, I'm all for an application process to buy a gun that includes a review by local law enforcement,
          and considers the persons contacts with law enforcement and the mental health system. And asks
          the potential purchaser why they are buying - making it a felony with a lot of prison time if they buy for someone who ends up being one of these shooters. Girlfriends and parents have bought for these shooters.

          None will be an immediate end all because I could probably go to downtown anywhere in the US (except maybe Wooster, Ohio) and illegally buy a gun in a half hour. So many millions of guns still
          out there. And how to videos and text on Youtube or other places.

          A concerted effort, can eventually get guns in the hands of sane, un-criminal people.

          Dan

          (Send your political contributions to Dan@...: )
          Signature

          "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314535].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author peter_act
      Thanks Suzanne,

      I was just expressing the opinion of people overseas, who just shake their heads in bewilderment and ask "Why?".

      Surely if Australia can ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty (no questions asked), why not the U.S.? As far as I know there have been no mass killings with a knife.

      We have just has a shooting in Sydney - a 15 year old gunned down a civilian. The point is he didn''t last long after killing just one person - the police immediately shot him dead. With an automatic weapon (illegal in Australia) he could have killed a lot more.
      Signature

      Cheap websites for small businesses: Affordable mobile websites
      Get a free autoresponder here: Money Making Opportunities

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315284].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by peter_act View Post

        Thanks Suzanne,

        I was just expressing the opinion of people overseas, who just shake their heads in bewilderment and ask "Why?".

        Surely if Australia can ban automatic weapons and have an amnesty (no questions asked), why not the U.S.? As far as I know there have been no mass killings with a knife.

        We have just has a shooting in Sydney - a 15 year old gunned down a civilian. The point is he didn''t last long after killing just one person - the police immediately shot him dead. With an automatic weapon (illegal in Australia) he could have killed a lot more.
        Yeah, I read about the Sydney shooting after this thread.

        To tell you the truth, I'm not against semi-automatic weapons. We've already banned (for the most part) fully automatic weapons. I come from a different type of gun culture. My father and brother are hunters and we were raised on wild game. It's food on our table.

        My father is a national champion rifle shooter a few times over. Before he got old, he went to the national rifle matches at Camp Perry, Ohio every year. Unfortunately for us kids, that was our family vacation. lol. Semi-automatic service weapons is what is shot at the matches and my father had a gunsmithing business building some of the finest and most expensive match conditioned rifles around. People still talk about them and him. He is an FFL, which means that he is allowed to build and sell and ship those guns to customers and is responsible for record keeping on every gun that went out of his shop. He still has his log of every customer and every gun he ever worked on or built, the customer's names, phone numbers and addresses and the serial number and description of the gun.

        The NRA was more about sports shooting than it is now. Now it's just sell guns to as many people as possible and prevent any and all controls on gun ownership. The NRA could care less how many people die in gun violence. As I said, they and the gun manufacturers have no conscience whatsoever.

        I'm for rigorous background checks, smaller magazine size available to the average gun owner, control over gun sales at gun shows, online, and private sales, and to think about how to ban sales and access to mentally ill. If you can ban sales to felons, surely you should be able to ban sales to mentally ill people. And I don't give a rat's ass about the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill. That doesn't mean that no mentally ill people will ever be able to get a gun, just like it doesn't mean that no felon will ever be able to get a gun, but it does make it more difficult for them to get one.

        By continuing to do absolutely nothing about gun violence, this is where our country is now on gun violence. It's become so commonplace that people are desensitized and numb to the facts of gun violence.

        994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like | US news | The Guardian
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315808].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Originally Posted by peter_act View Post

    Reading about the latest in the never ending shooting sagas coming from the U.S. reminded me of the old Warrior Don (midasman09).

    He used to be on here all the time, but I guess the never ending knockers finally got to him, as I haven't heard from him for ages.

    Anyway, back to the shootings, we had ours at Port Arthur, whereupon the prime minister John Howard introduced new stringent gun laws - not a shooting since.

    When will you guys ever learn?
    In a nut shell what are the gun laws Downunder? What other procedures were changed?
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314557].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      In a nut shell what are the gun laws Downunder? What other procedures were changed?
      From WIki.
      Firearms laws are the responsibility of state governments and usually these Governments act on the recommendations of their Police services in firearms matters. Issues arise in each state due to local activism, enforcement culture and differences in administration.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia According to the graph we have approx. 2.75 gun deaths per 100,000 with a slight raise. They have approx. 1.25 gun deaths per 100,000 with a sharp raise.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314573].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Secondly both countries have mandatory military service for all citizens as soon as they turn 18.
        I think the above is important. We don't have anything now that requires service - or responsibility - or, for that matter, accountability (until it's too late for victims).

        I've wondered if the reason shootings are increasing in "schools" is because these shooters aren't growing up. They are acting like children - have never had to take on responsibility for themselves or others - and still identify in their own mind as a "child" an thus target 'children'.

        Maybe we should consider a "service draft" where young people (male and female) MUST serve - say, 2 years - working on public works projects, helping maintain national parks and lands, help administer govt programs and staff govt facilities.

        Provide pay and dorm housing and other benefits we have for the miltiary - but with a term limit as these would not be lifetime positions. Require the testing used by the military and identify/treat those young people who have visible mental or potential emotional problems. Perhaps tie the 'service' record to a scale of support for college when the young person completes his public service or allow a young person to work while also attending classes.

        Arguing the same issues every time a tragedy occurs is getting us nowhere. We aren't going to ban guns - it won't happen. Until all of our country figures out how to use one computer database for background checks, problem people will fly under the radar. We aren't willing to give up rights for safety - and those rights keep us from incarcerating people who "might" do something wrong in the future. It's a losing battle unless we come up with something new.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314627].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Maybe we should consider a "service draft" where young people (male and female) MUST serve - say, 2 years - working on public works projects, helping maintain national parks and lands, help administer govt programs and staff govt facilities.
          That'd solve any number of problems. It'd be great boost to the economy. It'd eliminate youth unemployment.

          However it's never going to happen. I can't elaborate on that any further as it goes deep into politics and will guarantee the thread gets shut down. Let's just say that your political landscape that is obsessed with slashing government spending and reducing the size of government will never allow anything like this to get through your bought and paid for congress and leave it at that.

          Now, back to the gun issue.
          Signature
          Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
          So that blind people can hate them as well.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315262].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author peter_act
      @ Bizgrower:

      In Australia, there is a a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a highly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

      Under the amnesty, nearly 1 million (now illegal) firearms, mostly semi-automatic .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns were destroyed.
      Signature

      Cheap websites for small businesses: Affordable mobile websites
      Get a free autoresponder here: Money Making Opportunities

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317231].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by peter_act View Post

        @ Bizgrower:

        In Australia, there is a a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a highly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

        Under the amnesty, nearly 1 million (now illegal) firearms, mostly semi-automatic .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns were destroyed.
        Not so fast there Peter. Read this and weep:

        Import of new 'fast and furious' Adler 110 shotgun sidesteps year-long federal ban

        Sadly the current government will probably allow this just to get this arseclown's vote in the Senate.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317274].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Well, we got where is the outrage over something that happened during the course of a war operation and where is the outrage over pharmaceuticals? Anyone want to throw around any more straw men? lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314608].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      Well, we got where is the outrage over something that happened during the course of a war operation and where is the outrage over pharmaceuticals? Anyone want to throw around any more straw men? lol.
      Right we should ignore the fact that the people we expect to do something about gun violence, commit more gun violence then the people you expect them to control.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10314732].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315212].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Not that it's ever going to happen.. but if you want to make all guns useless, ban the manufacture of the ammo. No amnesty needed, just wait a few years.

      So I think I can review what went on in the US. A few centuries ago people came here and there were lots of wild animals, bears and marauding Indians around. Also there was no real food processing or distribution set up yet so you had to shoot for food as well as to protect yourselves. Then of course the fight for who will rule, eject the British first and then fight amongst yourselves in a civil war.

      So, no wonder the right to bear arms was written into your constitution. It was at the time applicable.

      Fast forward several hundred years and apart from a few isolated areas the need for this has gone. No amendment to that Constitution to reflect the changed times. The right to have them ingrained into your psyche despite the shootings and regular easy murders you see it as just part and parcel of this right. More people, more murders, more nutcases around to do it, more murders. That's down to a ridiculous increase in the population over the years, perhaps if you looked at the stats, a proportional increase of shootings based on population.

      On top of that of course you built up a huge manufacturing industry out of this and clients are overseas as well as at home. Huge revenues to be earned and great taxes to the coffers to be payed

      Conclusion. I see no hope of this state of affairs ever changing in the US, not for a very long time.
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315235].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        Not that it's ever going to happen.. but if you want to make all guns useless, ban the manufacture of the ammo. No amnesty needed, just wait a few years.

        So I think I can review what went on in the US. A few centuries ago people came here and there were lots of wild animals, bears and marauding Indians around. Also there was no real food processing or distribution set up yet so you had to shoot for food as well as to protect yourselves. Then of course the fight for who will rule, eject the British first and then fight amongst yourselves in a civil war.

        So, no wonder the right to bear arms was written into your constitution. It was at the time applicable.

        Fast forward several hundred years and apart from a few isolated areas the need for this has gone. No amendment to that Constitution to reflect the changed times. The right to have them ingrained into your psyche despite the shootings and regular easy murders you see it as just part and parcel of this right. More people, more murders, more nutcases around to do it, more murders. That's down to a ridiculous increase in the population over the years, perhaps if you looked at the stats, a proportional increase of shootings based on population.

        On top of that of course you built up a huge manufacturing industry out of this and clients are overseas as well as at home. Huge revenues to be earned and great taxes to the coffers to be payed

        Conclusion. I see no hope of this state of affairs ever changing in the US, not for a very long time.
        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
        Nope not written into the Constitution for hunting. It's more about keeping the government in line (though that hasn't worked out to well). Originally the government was suppose to answer to the people. Now it's the other way around. It's also easier to control an unarmed population then it is an armed one and the founders knew that from first hand experience.
        The Right to Bear Arms
        To reduce the potential military threat to his troops, Gage began to disarm colonists, seizing their ammunition. The march on Concord was not the first such mission. In September 1774, the General had sent 260 men to capture the supply of gunpowder at the Powder House on Quarry Hill (now in the town of Somerville). Starting out before dawn, the British regulars took possession of 250 half-barrels, bringing them back to Boston before noon. Following angry protests in the countryside, Gage made steps to secure Boston from the American mobs.American Experience | Patriots Day | People & Events | PBS
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315249].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Nope not written into the Constitution for hunting. It's more about keeping the government in line (though that hasn't worked out to well). Originally the government was suppose to answer to the people. Now it's the other way around. It's also easier to control an unarmed population then it is an armed one and the founders knew that from first hand experience.
          Ah, I did not factor that in, young experimental government, people may not like it so option and fighting chance to overthrow. Thanks Thom.

          Interesting article..

          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34429918
          Signature

          Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315332].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            Ah, I did not factor that in, young experimental government, people may not like it so option and fighting chance to overthrow. Thanks Thom.

            Interesting article..

            Why Obama is powerless to reform gun laws - BBC News
            Some of those % numbers need an explanation.
            In 2012, for instance, Mr Obama carried 50.6% of the US vote
            The correct numbers would be he carried 50.6% of the 51% of registered voters that voted. It could be argued that 49% of registered voters didn't see a candidate worth voting for
            So only 25.3% of registered voters voted for him.
            In was (and in a sense still is) an experimental government. I believe the founders saw where it could be corrupted and end where it is now. Having an armed citizenry, they thought, would guard against that.
            One of the problem we have today is you have people who still believe the constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it's primary purpose is to protect the people from the government and to limit the government. Then you have the people who see it as an obstacle to whatever their agenda is. They're the ones who claim it's a living document that should be changed to "keep up with the times". Of course the changes they want give us less freedom and infringe on our rights. The second amendment seems to be the main focus at the moment. What most people understand is once one amendment is taken away or severely infringed upon it makes it easier to infringe on the other ones like freedom of speech, or religion, or the right to freely travel between states .
            Now I don't own any guns. I'm a lousy shot with a gun and I don't particularly like them (or fireworks). I've been shot before with an "empty" gun and hit in the side with a roman candle (been stabbed before also, but that's irrelevant, lol). But I understand the danger from having rights infringed on.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315403].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        So I think I can review what went on in the US. A few centuries ago people came here and there were lots of wild animals, bears and marauding Indians around. Also there was no real food processing or distribution set up yet so you had to shoot for food as well as to protect yourselves.
        There are still people that want and prefer meat that they hunt over factory raised animals pumped full of antibiotics and other chemicals, raised in filthy inhumane conditions and slaughtered in a deplorable manner. We STILL do hunt the majority of our meat.

        And sports shooting is still alive and well and when people are involved in shooting as a sport, they have a very healthy knowledge of guns and gun use. The level of gun violence in the sports shooting community is most likely low. They are no more likely to use guns for violence than a tennis star is likely to use a tennis racket to kill someone.

        It isn't the hunters and sports shooters that the country needs to worry about. Unfortunately, because of the saturation of easily concealed and very lethal small arms in this country, the need to protect yourself is still very high, depending on where you live. Move to New York or Chicago or other big cities ... get a gun.

        I don't own one, but the chances of a home invasion where I live is nil and in a rural farm area where I live, I'm not much worried about random gun violence or stray bullets whizzing by my head while shopping. That doesn't mean that there are no guns in my house. My father still lives here along with his arsenal from his hunting and sports shooting days.

        It isn't all mentally ill people doing the mass shootings as some people (NRA and gun manufacturers) would suggest. But for the mentally ill, I think family members should play a role in keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Take a look at Adam Lanza's mother, who died from her stupidity. She gave her son guns, and yet professed to friends that she was afraid of her son. She wanted to be rid of him ... to send him to an out of state college so she wouldn't have to care for him any longer, and yet, she filled her house with guns and allowed him access. Her wanting to send him away is exactly what triggered his massacre of 26 people, 20 of them being young children. Of course, he killed his mother too, and I feel zero remorse about that. She absolutely should have and could have not allowed that kid access to those guns.

        By the way, in case you weren't aware, there are national and other rifle matches in the UK.

        National Rifle Association of the UK | NRA | Home Page

        National Small-bore Rifle Association

        British Shooting

        http://www.accurateshooter.com/compe...tion-uk-style/

        UKPSA
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315837].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    I still can't read that as meaning that citizens have the right to protect themselves against the State. It seems to want a Swiss style setup, where citizens are armed to protect the State from any hostile invaders.

    Further reading: How the NRA rewrote the 2nd Amendment.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315269].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      I still can't read that as meaning that citizens have the right to protect themselves against the State. It seems to want a Swiss style setup, where citizens are armed to protect the State from any hostile invaders.

      Further reading: How the NRA rewrote the 2nd Amendment.
      If not the defacto intent of the Second Amendment, we are taught that it is to protect ourselves from
      the State. (At least I was from 1966 on) Fear of the State seems to be ever present. Some thought Bush II was going to declare Marshall Law and remain President, and now some think Obama will do that....
      Signature

      "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315285].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

        If not the defacto intent of the Second Amendment, we are taught that it is to protect ourselves from
        the State. (At least I was from 1966 on) Fear of the State seems to be ever present. Some thought Bush II was going to declare Marshall Law and remain President, and now some think Obama will do that....
        IMHO, those people who think that are wacky and IMHO, have no real justification for their beliefs.

        As far as I'm concerned its like a child afraid of some mythical boogeyman in their bedroom closet - childish but since they're adults - also highly irresponsible.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315955].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          IMHO, those people who think that are wacky and IMHO, have no real justification for their beliefs.

          As far as I'm concerned its like a child afraid of some mythical boogeyman in their bedroom closet - childish but since their adults - highly irresponsible.
          You mean about the Marshall Law stuff. Yes - extreme example. But they are there and there are the militia types as well. ... And normal supporters of the Constitution.

          And about the letter you posted from the Sheriff in Roseburg. The query from the Feds may have been as ambiguous as his letter, and he and the other Sheriffs/law enforcement personnel perceived it as something they needed to clarify. So I don't think it's something to put them on a watch list. His comments about Sandy Hook are another story - bizarre.
          Signature

          "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316148].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

            You mean about the Marshall Law stuff. Yes - extreme example. But they are there and there are the militia types as well. ... And normal supporters of the Constitution.

            And about the letter you posted from the Sheriff in Roseburg. The query from the Feds may have been as ambiguous as his letter, and he and the other Sheriffs/law enforcement personnel perceived it as something they needed to clarify. So I don't think it's something to put them on a watch list. His comments about Sandy Hook are another story - bizarre.
            Any American who seriously thinks the feds are ever going to ban and then try to confiscate guns are out of their minds - IMHO.

            And yes, his comments about Sandy Hook are most bizarre and troubling IMHO, which prompts me to wonder what he would view as unconstitutional - as mentioned in his letter to the Veep.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316164].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              There's a guy on facebook who believes that not only was the Sandy Hook shooting faked but also the recent church shootings and the live reporter shooting as well. He's not the only one either. Totally bizarre.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316277].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                There's a guy on facebook who believes that not only was the Sandy Hook shooting faked but also the recent church shootings and the live reporter shooting as well. He's not the only one either. Totally bizarre.

                Not for here.
                Signature
                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316280].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author discrat
                  Some of the gun freaks and their mentality is just plain insanity to me.

                  I believe that every man should have the Right to protect his family and himself from criminals. I do not have a gun but many times I thought about it especially in the last 2 months here in my neighborhood with the break ins.

                  But some of these gun extremists ( and there are really so many that it is not a minority anymore) they talk about and encourage people to take guns to Sunday School, Little league baseball games, Boy Scout meetings etc..

                  Its just insane to me. Its just delusional thinking that everyone is out to get them. I believe their is truly some mental issues with some of these people.

                  People encouraging others to bring guns to Sunday School ?? Because of the danger ??

                  WTF, that is absurd. How many Sunday School meetings in the history of the US have resulted in a Charleston, South Carolina?

                  We need to get help for some of these people !

                  Bottom line : If I run into a guy who is trying to encourage me to take a Gun to my daughter's Brownie Meetings then I am going to have someone check him out for Mental instability
                  Signature

                  Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316327].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                    Some of the gun freaks and their mentality is just plain insanity to me.
                    Me too I like grenades a lot more then guns.

                    Greanades = more bang for ur bucks.
                    Guns = a mean to get yourself in a position to throw grenades
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316631].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
                    Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                    WTF, that is absurd. How many Sunday School meetings in the history of the US have resulted in a Charleston, South Carolina?
                    The National Church Shooting Database recorded a total of 139 shootings in churches between 1980 and 2005. In all, 185 people died, including 36 children. These numbers don't include other types of violence that don't involve guns, such as bombings, nor do they include the places of worship of non-Christian faiths, such as synagogues or mosques.

                    http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-la...gs-in-churches
                    United States National Church Shooting Database, 1980-2005
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316646].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Any American who seriously thinks the feds are ever going to ban and then try to confiscate guns are out of their minds - IMHO.
              It wasn't that long ago. And, it wasn't the feds exactly, although national guard troops were involved.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...ricane_Katrina

              Confiscation of civilian firearms Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58‑year‑old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.[87][88]
              Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms, saying that, "What we've seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves." The searches received little news coverage, though reaction from groups such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further firearms confiscations.[87]
              After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316585].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by Ron Lafuddy View Post

                It wasn't that long ago. And, it wasn't the feds exactly, although national guard troops were involved.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...ricane_Katrina

                Confiscation of civilian firearms Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, U.S. Army National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58‑year‑old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.[87][88]
                Angered citizens, backed by the National Rifle Association and other organizations, filed protests over the constitutionality of such an order and the difficulty in tracking seizures, as paperwork was rarely filed during the searches. Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, defended the right of affected citizens to retain firearms, saying that, "What we’ve seen in Louisiana - the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster - is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves." The searches received little news coverage, though reaction from groups such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America was immediate and heated, and a lawsuit was filed September 22 by the NRA and SAF on behalf of two firearm owners whose firearms were seized. On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further firearms confiscations.[87]
                After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms.
                OK, I'll rephrase...

                The feds will never dare try a nationwide confiscation of guns unless there is a seriously catastrophic event and even then it won't fly, as 99 out of 100 gun owners will not willingly give up their guns.

                I believe there are at least 300 million guns in the hands of citizens.
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316625].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  OK, I'll rephrase...

                  The feds will never dare try a nationwide confiscation of guns unless there is a seriously catastrophic event and even then it won't fly, as 99 out of 100 gun owners will not willingly give up their guns.

                  I believe there are at least 300 million guns in the hands of citizens.
                  A friend of mine owns only unregistered guns. He believes Fed or local authorities may someday
                  knock on his door to confiscate if they were registered.

                  He lives in the mountains and has had to protect himself or his dog from wildlife a few times. Warning shots have worked.

                  One time I know of he did have to protect himself from people. Five guys in a truck harassing him
                  on the rural road home. He was by himself. They just about ran him off the road - just causing trouble.
                  He got to a place he could pull over and asked if they really wanted to bring knives to a gun fight.
                  They left the scene.
                  Signature

                  "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316648].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
                  This happened earlier, but offers a precedent, for future presidents.

                  The First Confiscation Act, signed into law on August 6, 1861 by Abraham Lincoln, stated that:

                  1. Weapons must be seized from all citizens with intent to rebel.

                  2. Weapons are to be retrieved from the field of battle so as not to be returned to rebellious persons.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confis...s#Consequences
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316715].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      I still can't read that as meaning that citizens have the right to protect themselves against the State. It seems to want a Swiss style setup, where citizens are armed to protect the State from any hostile invaders.

      Further reading: How the NRA rewrote the 2nd Amendment.
      I think it means both. Like I said the patriots went through the (at that time) current government trying to disarm them by taking their gun powder. Keep in mind the Colonist weren't Americans, they were for the most part Brits. So they weren't revolting against a foreign government but their own government.
      When I read what Ian wrote my first thought was "This sounds familiar".
      Also keep in mind that the Swiss has a totally different government then we do. They currently have elected representatives from 5 different political parties serving, with an average voter turnout of 90%+-. When you have that variety of Representatives with that amount of active voters combined with a non-intervention government that is naturally more focused on their people then invading other countries the people don't have to worry about defending themselves from the government. On the flip side the government doesn't have to worry about the citizens rebelling.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315308].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      I still can't read that as meaning that citizens have the right to protect themselves against the State. It seems to want a Swiss style setup, where citizens are armed to protect the State from any hostile invaders.
      The idea that a well armed militia was included in the Constitution to protect citizens from the state kind of falls apart when you read another part of the Constitution where it says who is the Commander of these militias:

      "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316628].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        The idea that a well armed militia was included in the Constitution to protect citizens from the state kind of falls apart when you read another part of the Constitution where it says who is the Commander of these militias:
        "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."
        What about the rest of the time?
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316642].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          What about the rest of the time?
          Well, the Constitution mentions only one commander. When the Militias aren't called into service I suppose it's the same commander. If the Militias decide to fight the government that would be treason.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316708].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Well, the Constitution mentions only one commander. When the Militias aren't called into service I suppose it's the same commander. If the Militias decide to fight the government that would be treason.
            Out of curiosity, what is it called when government decides to fight the citizens?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316722].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by Ron Lafuddy View Post

              Out of curiosity, what is it called when government decides to fight the citizens?
              Police brutality?
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316748].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Police brutality?
                With regards to what it might be called when government makes war on citizens, there is also precedent.

                Hiroshima: Lincoln’s Legacy to Civilians

                BREAKING THIS TRADITION
                This tradition was honored until 1864. Then, Lincoln made a decision to unleash the military forces of the Union Army against Southern civilians. It began in the summer of 1864, when he authorized Sheridan's forces to burn the farms of civilians in the Shenandoah Valley. This was the origin of the modern war of terror on civilians. Sherman's troops dug up railroad tracks, placing them in the proximity of trees, and heating them, so that they could be hammered into "Sherman's neckties" around the trees. Sherman fully understood the the only way to get rid of those reminders of defeat would be to chop down the trees. He burned Atlanta because he wanted to send a message to a defeated, helpless population. "War is hell," he famously said. He helped make it so as a matter of policy. Then he took his troops on the legendary march to the sea. The Union Army stole everything it could from Southern civilians. It lived off the land. Only it didn't; it lived off the wives and children of the region.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316878].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by Ron Lafuddy View Post

                  With regards to what it might be called when government makes war on citizens, there is also precedent.
                  That was a war the South started. Yes, Sherman's march was brutal but it resulted in ending the war.

                  On November 22, 3,500 Confederate cavalry started a skirmish with the Union soldiers at Griswoldville, but that ended so badly-650 Confederate soldiers were killed or wounded, compared to 62 Yankee casualties-that Southern troops initiated no more battles. Instead, they fled South ahead of Sherman's troops, wreaking their own havoc as they went: They wrecked bridges, chopped down trees and burned barns filled with provisions before the Union army could reach them.

                  The Union soldiers were just as unsparing. They raided farms and plantations, stealing and slaughtering cows, chickens, turkeys, sheep and hogs and taking as much other food-especially bread and potatoes-as they could carry. (These groups of foraging soldiers were nicknamed "bummers," and they burned whatever they could not carry.) The marauding Yankees needed the supplies, but they also wanted to teach Georgians a lesson: "it isn't so sweet to secede," one soldier wrote in a letter home, "as [they] thought it would be."

                  Sherman's troops arrived in Savannah on December 21, 1864, about three weeks after they left Atlanta. The city was undefended when they got there. (The 10,000 Confederates who were supposed to be guarding it had already fled.) Sherman presented the city of Savannah and its 25,000 bales of cotton to President Lincoln as a Christmas gift.Early in 1865, Sherman and his men left Savannah and pillaged and burned their way through South Carolina to Charleston. In April, the Confederacy surrendered and the war was over.

                  TOTAL WAR
                  Sherman's "total war" in Georgia was brutal and destructive, but it did just what it was supposed to do: it hurt Southern morale, made it impossible for the Confederates to fight at full capacity and likely hastened the end of the war. "This Union and its Government must be sustained, at any and every cost," explained one of Sherman's subordinates. "To sustain it, we must war upon and destroy the organized rebel forces,-must cut off their supplies, destroy their communications...and produce among the people of Georgia a thorough conviction of the personal misery which attends war, and the utter helplessness and inability of their 'rulers' to protect them...If that terror and grief and even want shall help to paralyze their husbands and fathers who are fighting us...it is mercy in the end."
                  Sherman’s March - American Civil War - HISTORY.com
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317124].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    That was a war the South started. Yes, Sherman's march was brutal but it resulted in ending the war.



                    Sherman's March - American Civil War - HISTORY.com

                    The History Channel is re-running its documentary named April 1865 saying it was an very important month in the history of the country. Many things were going on and one of them was the confederate Prez wanted to continue the fight in a guerrilla type of war but Robert E. Lee declined. Check it out if you get the chance.

                    BWI...

                    Many historians say James A. Garfield (1881) was the first prez after the civil war that both north and south folks felt was prez of the entire country and his assassination helped bring the country together.
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318295].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Many historians say James A. Garfield (1881) was the first prez after the civil war that both north and south folks felt was prez of the entire country and his assassination helped bring the country together.
                      Ironic. Nothing like a good assassination to bring people together. If that were really the case, the people of this country would be tight as drums.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318375].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Well, the Constitution mentions only one commander. When the Militias aren't called into service I suppose it's the same commander. If the Militias decide to fight the government that would be treason.
            In your quote it says only commander of the militia when it's called into service.
            Another aspect of the second amendment is with self defense. Other then hunting one of the main reasons for owning a gun.
            No matter how you look at it at that time we as a nation where coming out from under the rule of what we felt was an oppressive government. The founders understood that what happened could happen again. That's why there are safe guards in place to protect the people. One of those safe guards is the 2nd amendment that covers self defense and defense against an oppressive government.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316814].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            When the Militias aren't called into service I suppose it's the same commander.
            I was wrong here. Actually, the governor of each state would be the Commander of their militia when the Militia hasn't been called into service to the federal government. However, Congress has the power to call the Militias into service. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 states that Congress shall have the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the
            Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and
            repel Invasions."

            Congress, also has the power to regulate the Militias. Before the Constitution Congress didn't have this power. So, although I agree that the founders were concerned about the dangers of an oppressive government, they were also concerned about a weak federal government. The Constitution strengthened the Federal Government in many ways.

            The separation of powers and checks and balances is how the Constitution deals with the threat of tyranny more so than the second amendment imo. Otherwise, why give the Federal government, Congressional and executive, more control over the Militias than before the Constitution?
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318138].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320657].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                You should be right. But truthfully, do you think that Prez O is traveling to Roseburg because of a sense of compassion, or to further his political agenda? I guess we will know the answer to that after he gives his speeches.
                None of us have an accurate idea of what the prez is thinking.

                He has to go. It's his job. If he didn't go, we would be saying it's because he was cold and didn't care.

                I imagine much of what he does, he doesn't really want to do, but it's expected.

                It amazes me, that anyone would want the job.
                Signature
                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320675].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  [DELETED]
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320772].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    No it's not.
                    When he went to Sandy Hook he used it to push his gun agenda, do think this time will be any different?
                    In your mind, what exactly is his gun agenda??
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320790].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      In your mind, what exactly is his gun agenda??
                      I guess we'll find out after his executive orders.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320835].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        I guess we'll find out after his executive orders.
                        That's silly.

                        Any executive order that tries to confiscate our weapons will get a stay before the SCOTUS quickly shoots it down.


                        Could his agenda be?

                        1: Finding better ways to use our mental health system to treat people who may be a danger to themselves and especially others , so the amount of mass shootings is reduced.

                        2: Stop the gun show/online loophole in which a reported 40% of all guns are sold.

                        3: Cut down on the size of magazines.

                        4: Universal background checks for new gun purchases.

                        5: Ban sales to the mentally ill.

                        Do you have a problem with any of those items above?

                        I say criminals killing each other is one thing, but I have a real problem with the mass shootings.

                        Question??????

                        Are you among those that say we shouldn't even try to do anything about this plague of gun violence upon our land?

                        I say... as Suzanne said earlier in this thread...

                        By continuing to do absolutely nothing about gun violence, this is where our country is now on gun violence. It's become so commonplace that people are desensitized and numb to the facts of gun violence.

                        The situation is embarrassing, dangerous and ridiculous.

                        994]994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like | US news | The Guardian mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like | US news | The Guardian
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320902].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          That's silly.

                          Any executive order that tries to confiscate our weapons will get a stay before the SCOTUS quickly shoots it down.


                          Could his agenda be?

                          1: Finding better ways to use our mental health system to treat people who may be a danger to themselves and especially others , so the amount of mass shootings is reduced.

                          2: Stop the gun show/online loophole in which a reported 40% of all guns are sold.

                          3: Cut down on the size of magazines.

                          4: Universal background checks for new gun purchases.

                          5: Ban sales to the mentally ill.

                          Do you have a problem with any of those items above?

                          I say criminals killing each other is one thing, but I have a real problem with the mass shootings.

                          Question??????

                          Are you among those that say we shouldn't even try to do anything about this plague of gun violence upon our land?

                          I say... as Suzanne said earlier in this thread...

                          By continuing to do absolutely nothing about gun violence, this is where our country is now on gun violence. It's become so commonplace that people are desensitized and numb to the facts of gun violence.

                          The situation is embarrassing, dangerous and ridiculous.

                          994]994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like | US news | The Guardian mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like | US news | The Guardian
                          Jumping to conclusions?
                          Those are mostly good ideas, but keep in mind this isn't a new occurrence and he has already made executive orders that where aimed at stopping this kind of thing.
                          By continuing to do absolutely nothing about gun violence, this is where our country is now on gun violence.
                          Plenty has been done about gun violence heck Obama has already done plenty himself through previous executive orders. NYS has the Safe Act and plenty of other states, counties, and cities have done something also. "Gun Free Zones" are a result of gun violence. Every gun law on the books is aimed at preventing gun violence. Maybe it's time to look at what causes these people to commit gun violence and working on those problems. Mental illness is a problem but a life time ban on anyone with a mental illness will only keep people from seeking the help they need. Instead how about someone diagnosed with a mental illness is not allowed to own guns until such time as they are determined to be cured, or not allow the ones using prescription medications that have a side effect of suicide or violent behavior to own a gun. Better yet ban those meds until such time as those side effects can be eliminated.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320953].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            Jumping to conclusions?
                            Those are mostly good ideas, but keep in mind this isn't a new occurrence and he has already made executive orders that where aimed at stopping this kind of thing. Plenty has been done about gun violence heck Obama has already done plenty himself through previous executive orders. NYS has the Safe Act and plenty of other states, counties, and cities have done something also. "Gun Free Zones" are a result of gun violence. Every gun law on the books is aimed at preventing gun violence. Maybe it's time to look at what causes these people to commit gun violence and working on those problems.

                            Mental illness is a problem but a life time ban on anyone with a mental illness will only keep people from seeking the help they need. Instead how about someone diagnosed with a mental illness is not allowed to own guns until such time as they are determined to be cured, or not allow the ones using prescription medications that have a side effect of suicide or violent behavior to own a gun.

                            Better yet ban those meds until such time as those side effects can be eliminated.
                            So that's it, ban the sale of certain meds. Anything else?
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320979].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                              So that's it, ban the sale of certain meds. Anything else?
                              That's all you took out of that?
                              Signature

                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10321000].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                That's all you took out of that?
                                Ok, ban the sale of firearms to the mentally disturbed and look deeper into the causes of the mass shootings along with banning the sale of certain meds.


                                Would everyone mind simply adding some spaces to help make your posts easier to read?
                                Signature

                                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10321016].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    No it's not.
                    Sure it is. Every tragedy has to be addressed by him. Every one. There has to be speeches, demands for action, and meeting with victim's families.

                    Every president does it. It's expected. To ignore such duties is political suicide.

                    And let's be honest. Anything he does is going to be hated by 50% of the country, and loved by the other 50%. Rational think and fairness has nothing to do with it.
                    Signature
                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                    What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320808].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                      Sure it is. Every tragedy has to be addressed by him. Every one. There has to be speeches, demands for action, and meeting with victim's families.

                      Every president does it. It's expected. To ignore such duties is political suicide.

                      And let's be honest. Anything he does is going to be hated by 50% of the country, and loved by the other 50%. Rational think and fairness has nothing to do with it.
                      The Pres does a lot of things outside of the ones quoted by Thom and of course, he could avoid all catastrophes and then be called names for avoiding all catatrophes or called a bigot because he went to a black church shooting and not a school shooting where the victims were mostly (or all) white.

                      He could just go on vacation and get some golfing in.

                      Yesterday, disaster struck. And even as one of the strongest storms in recorded history rocked the Gulf Coast, President Bush decided to continue his vacation, visiting the Pueblo El Mirage RV and Golf Resort in El Mirage, Ariz., to hawk his Medicare drug benefit plan. (Bush will spend one more night in Crawford tonight before flying back to Washington.)
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320820].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                      Sure it is. Every tragedy has to be addressed by him. Every one. There has to be speeches, demands for action, and meeting with victim's families.

                      Every president does it. It's expected. To ignore such duties is political suicide.

                      And let's be honest. Anything he does is going to be hated by 50% of the country, and loved by the other 50%. Rational think and fairness has nothing to do with it.
                      Did he go to Chattanooga? Short answer is no.Is he going to Fl. after the mass shooting that happened there hours after the Oregon one?
                      He doesn't go to or address every tragedy, no president has. He has on the other hand executed executive orders on gun control before that clearly haven't worked. Forbes Welcome
                      So now he'll issue some more, which most likely won't work.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320880].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        Did he go to Chattanooga? Short answer is no.Is he going to Fl. after the mass shooting that happened there hours after the Oregon one?
                        He doesn't go to or address every tragedy, no president has. He has on the other hand executed executive orders on gun control before that clearly haven't worked. Forbes Welcome
                        So now he'll issue some more, which most likely won't work.
                        And not one of those exec orders says anything about...

                        1: Confiscating already owned guns.

                        2: Stopping the gun show/online loophole in which a reported 40% of all guns are sold.

                        3: Cutting down on the size of magazines.

                        4: Universal background checks for new gun purchases.

                        Because he knows he can't because he understands we have the right to have guns. And the other items also require the consent of congress.

                        So he's doing what he can do without congress.
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320921].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        Did he go to Chattanooga? Short answer is no.Is he going to Fl. after the mass shooting that happened there hours after the Oregon one?
                        He doesn't go to or address every tragedy, no president has. He has on the other hand executed executive orders on gun control before that clearly haven't worked. Forbes Welcome
                        So now he'll issue some more, which most likely won't work.
                        Well, if he went to every instance of domestic violence related murder, gang related murder, robbery/murder, familial murder/suicide, his agenda would be full of nothing but visiting murder scenes for the rest of his presidency, wouldn't it? By going to the mass murder of strangers of 10 or so victims, at least he can get some work done in between.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320931].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                          Well, if he went to every instance of domestic violence related murder, gang related murder, robbery/murder, familial murder/suicide, his agenda would be full of nothing but visiting murder scenes for the rest of his presidency, wouldn't it? By going to the mass murder of strangers of 10 or so victims, at least he can get some work done in between.
                          That was pretty much my point in saying it's not his job.
                          So 10 lives matter enough for a presidential visit, but three lives don't, I got ya.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320961].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        Did he go to Chattanooga? Short answer is no.Is he going to Fl. after the mass shooting that happened there hours after the Oregon one?
                        He doesn't go to or address every tragedy, no president has. He has on the other hand executed executive orders on gun control before that clearly haven't worked. Forbes Welcome
                        So now he'll issue some more, which most likely won't work.
                        You are right, I shouldn't have said "Every". The tragedies that get national attention, is really where he goes. Just like every politician, that wants to show they care.

                        Thanks for calling me on it.
                        Signature
                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320963].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Not saying the USA and how it is and has come to be is right or wrong, but with respect to the Constitution and the Second Amendment, we are young for a country - just over 200 years old. Around a hundred years since some final areas were settled (for lack of a better word).

    You have to imagine the depth of the intellect, passion, and spiritual or religious beliefs of the framers
    of the Constitution - forming a new nation across the then hugely, vast ocean from it's "parent" country,
    and trying to create a system of governance that would not easily become oppressive to the citizens,
    and allow the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_...t_of_Happiness

    Dan

    (Not an attempt to break the religious or political rules, just an attempt to explain
    the depth and passion of those who believe in the Second Amendment, in particular,
    as well as the rest of the Constitution and the related Declaration of Independence.)

    Personally, I think that if the majority of the world ran the world, there would soon be
    almost no more war, murder, poverty, and starvation.
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10315500].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    There is a new threat posted by the Beta group for Philadelphia today. The FBI has warned the schools of the threat. It has an avatar of the same frog as the first threat, only with a ninja mask on.You can see it here

    https://archive.moe/r9k/thread/22859387/

    The Beta Rebellion has begun Anonymous Fri 02 Oct 14:16:06 2015 No.22859387 ViewReplyOriginalReport
    Quoted By: >>22859507 >>22859533 >>22859568 >>22859574 >>22859609 >>22859620 >>22859643 >>22859665 >>22859671 >>22859674 >>22859679 >>22859703 >>22859722 >>22859761 >>22859872 >>22859901 >>22859977 >>22859991 >>22860079 >>22860099 >>22860131 >>22860143 >>22860159 >>22860165 >>22860203
    The first of our kind has struck fear into the hearts of America. His cries have been heard, even by the President.

    This is only the beginning. The Beta Rebellion has begun. Soon, more of our brothers will take up arms to become martyrs to this revolution.

    On October 5, 2015 at 1:00 PM CT, a fellow robot will take up arms against a university near Philadelphia. His cries will be heard, his victims will cower in fear, and the strength of the Union will decay a little more.

    If you are in that area, you are encouraged to stay at home and watch the news as the chaos unfolds. His sacrifice will echo throughout the nation.

    I plead to thee, brothers! We only have but one chance, one spark, for our revolution. The United States will soon condemn us to the status quo forever, and soon after, the United Nations. Don't let our one chance at writing history slip away. Martyr yourself for the cause or support those who have the courage to do so. We have the chance to make the world a better place for betas everywhere.

    Hiro have mercy on us all. Lend us your strength to fight this evil.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316268].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author alistair
    What exactly do people expect or think your government may do to you if they did outlaw gun ownership over there? In other words why do people seem concerned about your government if they took your guns.

    Edited to make the question clearer, I think.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316845].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by alistair View Post

      What exactly do people expect or think your government may do to you if they did outlaw gun ownership over there? In other words why do people seem concerned about your government if they took your guns.

      Edited to make the question clearer, I think.
      What I think they would do doesn't matter. What they think they could do does.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10316886].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ron Lafuddy
      Originally Posted by alistair View Post

      What exactly do people expect or think your government may do to you if they did outlaw gun ownership over there? In other words why do people seem concerned about your government if they took your guns.

      Edited to make the question clearer, I think.
      It wasn't that long ago. It really did happen.

      Disarming Jews in Nazi Germany

      On November 11, 1938, the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons was promulgated by Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition.[7] Some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'".[5]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_le...ion_in_Germany
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317053].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by alistair View Post

      What exactly do people expect or think your government may do to you if they did outlaw gun ownership over there? In other words why do people seem concerned about your government if they took your guns.

      Edited to make the question clearer, I think.
      Whatever that fear is, it's manufactured and kept alive, for marketing purposes.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317413].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author discrat
      Originally Posted by alistair View Post

      What exactly do people expect or think your government may do to you if they did outlaw gun ownership over there? In other words why do people seem concerned about your government if they took your guns.

      Edited to make the question clearer, I think.
      Yeah, its because they are delusional nut cases who are paranoid schizophrenic, really.

      I have been around it my whole life living deep in the bible belt most of my childhood and adult Life.

      Its just a weird way of looking at life.

      And you get these Militia people who take it even a step further.

      I know people think I am being a smart ass or exaggerating but a lot of these gun extremists and people who are afraid the govt is going to get them... are really mentally unstable.

      I have said this for years and do not mince my words.

      There is something in parts of the brain that are not functioning properly. Its a delusion and their logic and reasoning does not make a lick of season, I mean sense lol !
      Signature

      Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317445].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by discrat View Post

        Yeah, its because they are delusional nut cases who are paranoid schizophrenic, really.

        I have been around it my whole life living deep in the bible belt most of my childhood and adult Life.

        Its just a weird way of looking at life.

        And you get these Militia people who take it even a step further.

        I know people think I am being a smart ass or exaggerating but a lot of these gun extremists and people who are afraid the govt is going to get them... are really mentally unstable.
        Some may be unstable. But I can see this paranoia as a result of an upbringing around such thoughts. You see it in certain regions, and not in others......so it shows that these thoughts are brought on by the environment they live in.

        And their politicians see this thinking, and reflect it back to the voters. And there are organizations and publications that keep this type of thinking alive.

        I know several very good people, that are caring, rational thinkers....except for this one point.

        But if you ask anyone enough questions, you'll probably find an area where they are absolutely bananas. Including me.

        My wife and I were talking about having a bomb shelter built in our back yard. After about half an hour, I started laughing, "Are we talking about this, because we just watched The Walking Dead, and The Strain back to back?" Maybe.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318467].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          "Are we talking about this, because we just watched The Walking Dead, and The Strain back to back?" Maybe.
          Maybe this point isn't as irrelevant as you make it. Maybe TWD and The Strain are reflecting back the zeitgeist in the same fashion as the politicians you refer to above.

          Maybe these shows, and others like them, are harbingers of things to come, foreshadowing a more realistic societal collapse.

          Maybe I just want you to sink $50,000 into a glorified subterranean shed.
          Signature

          Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318513].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

            Maybe this point isn't as irrelevant as you make it. Maybe TWD and The Strain are reflecting back the zeitgeist in the same fashion as the politicians you refer to above.

            Maybe these shows, and others like them, are harbingers of things to come, foreshadowing a more realistic societal collapse.

            Maybe I just want you to sink $50,000 into a glorified subterranean shed.
            If I build one, everyone is invited...but you.
            Signature
            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

            What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318663].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              What you don't normally here in the news is about the shootings that are stopped because of legally armed citizens being in the right place at the right time.
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ass-shootings/

              After I posted this I noticed how the link showed up. Got to love ass shootings
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318758].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                What you don't normally here in the news is about the shootings that are stopped because of legally armed citizens being in the right place at the right time.
                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ass-shootings/

                After I posted this I noticed how the link showed up. Got to love ass shootings
                All of the very few examples given in that article are linked and reported in news, so they do report them, although there are very few to report in comparison with the death rate by gun violence.

                A while back I posted about a few examples, but since then there have been some more, so I thought I'd note them. Naturally, such examples will be rare. Even in states which allow concealed carry, there often aren't people near a shooting who have a gun on them at the time.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318836].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  All of the very few examples given in that article are linked and reported in news, so they do report them, although there are very few to report in comparison with the death rate by gun violence.
                  How many get the coverage on national news?
                  How many shooting have been prevented by stricter gun laws? Here in NY with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation the answer would be around 0. Around the states capitol we have seen no decrease in gun violence after the safe act and in fact are near seeing an increase this year. The governors aide was just shot in NYC where it's virtually impossible to own a gun legally.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318854].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    How many get the coverage on national news?
                    How many shooting have been prevented by stricter gun laws? Here in NY with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation the answer would be around 0. Around the states capitol we have seen no decrease in gun violence after the safe act and in fact are near seeing an increase this year. The governors aide was just shot in NYC where it's virtually impossible to own a gun legally.
                    Of course gun laws in NY and Chicago don't do squat because everybody and their mother already has 3 guns each, including the criminals. That also includes the law abiding citizens, so why aren't they on the streets taking down the criminals? That old "NRA line only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" shit ain't working very well.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318860].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                      Of course gun laws in NY and Chicago don't do squat because everybody and their mother already has 3 guns each, including the criminals. That also includes the law abiding citizens, so why aren't they on the streets taking down the criminals? That old "NRA line only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" shit ain't working very well.
                      I can't speak for Chicago but that's flat out bull about NY.
                      Most people here that own guns are hunters. Some people MAY have a gun at home for self defense or have one for shooting targets.
                      And like it or not, more good guys with guns have stopped shootings then all of the "gun free zones" have. That is by far the stupidest idea out there. Especially when they put up a sign advertising it.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318951].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        I can't speak for Chicago but that's flat out bull about NY.
                        Most people here that own guns are hunters. Some people MAY have a gun at home for self defense or have one for shooting targets.
                        And like it or not, more good guys with guns have stopped shootings then all of the "gun free zones" have. That is by far the stupidest idea out there. Especially when they put up a sign advertising it.
                        Well, I'm not going to argue gun laws with you. I live in a civil area where people don't talk much about guns. They don't parade around schools, churches, restaurants, movies and other public places in military garb professing their rights to carry guns where ever they want. I like it that way. I'd prefer to concentrate on having a nice dinner out than eating a meal with militia parading around with assault weapons. If New York doesn't like the gun laws, vote for someone else next time around. I don't care what other cities do really, but polls suggest that there is support for NY gun laws in part.

                        Ninety percent of New Yorkers — including 80% of gun owners — support part of Gov. Cuomo's tough gun control law, poll shows

                        ... and like it or not, those rare instances that there has been a good guy with a gun that stopped a violent crime are so few and far between that they have zero impact on the gun violence occurring in this country.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318978].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                          Well, I'm not going to argue gun laws with you. I live in a civil area where people don't talk much about guns. They don't parade around schools, churches, restaurants, movies and other public places in military garb professing their rights to carry guns where ever they want. I like it that way. I'd prefer to concentrate on having a nice dinner out than eating a meal with militia parading around with assault weapons. If New York doesn't like the gun laws, vote for someone else next time around. I don't care what other cities do really, but polls suggest that there is support for NY gun laws in part.

                          Ninety percent of New Yorkers -- including 80% of gun owners -- support part of Gov. Cuomo's tough gun control law, poll shows

                          ... and like it or not, those rare instances that there has been a good guy with a gun that stopped a violent crime are so few and far between that they have zero impact on the gun violence occurring in this country.
                          New yorkers don't parade around any place with guns either.
                          We tried voting Cuomo out, but NYC made sure that didn't happen.
                          As far as the poll goes, I'm not buying it. A majority of counties have passed resolutions opposing the Safe Act. Does this look like New Yorkers support it? Resolutions - NY SAFE Resolutions
                          Some parts of it are good. but most of it is just a knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook shootings to try to make it look like the governor is doing something.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319024].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                            Banned
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            New yorkers don't parade around any place with guns either.
                            We tried voting Cuomo out, but NYC made sure that didn't happen.
                            As far as the poll goes, I'm not buying it. A majority of counties have passed resolutions opposing the Safe Act. Does this look like New Yorkers support it? Resolutions - NY SAFE Resolutions
                            Some parts of it are good. but most of it is just a knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook shootings to try to make it look like the governor is doing something.
                            Like I said ... I really only care about the environment where I live. It's just too much to think about other states and their laws. In Texas there are numerous pics of militia types parading around restaurants with assault weapons because a restaurant chooses to be gun free zone. I'm glad that New Yorkers don't do that. Doesn't happen in Va either. Some gun owners seem to think that just because there is a second amendment, that guns are welcome everywhere or they have the right to impose their guns on others. That's just not the case.

                            We had our school shooting at VA Tech. One of the worst in history. Yet another mentally deranged asshole with a bunch of assault handguns.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319031].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                              Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                              Like I said ... I really only care about the environment where I live. It's just too much to think about other states and their laws. In Texas there are numerous pics of militia types parading around restaurants with assault weapons because a restaurant chooses to be gun free zone. I'm glad that New Yorkers don't do that. Doesn't happen in Va either. Some gun owners seem to think that just because there is a second amendment, that guns are welcome everywhere or they have the right to impose their guns on others. That's just not the case.

                              We had our school shooting at VA Tech. One of the worst in history. Yet another mentally deranged asshole with a bunch of assault handguns.
                              Perspective has a lot to do here and it's something that has been lacking. Like what you mention in Texas. What those militia types are missing as far as perspective is, just as the second amendment protects their right to have a gun, it also protects the right of an individual or business to make the choice not to have one. That's one reason why having rights and protecting those rights are so important. I don't support the second amendment because I want a gun, I support it because I want to be the one that makes that decision.
                              Signature

                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319076].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                                Banned
                                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                Perspective has a lot to do here and it's something that has been lacking. Like what you mention in Texas. What those militia types are missing as far as perspective is, just as the second amendment protects their right to have a gun, it also protects the right of an individual or business to make the choice not to have one. That's one reason why having rights and protecting those rights are so important. I don't support the second amendment because I want a gun, I support it because I want to be the one that makes that decision.
                                We are in complete agreement. I just want to live my life with gun activism in this peaceful setting that I live in and have either the right to bear arms or the right not to, the right to go to public places without feeling like I'm on a military base, etc.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319228].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                                  We are in complete agreement. I just want to live my life with gun activism in this peaceful setting that I live in and have either the right to bear arms or the right not to, the right to go to public places without feeling like I'm on a military base, etc.
                                  Yea, with all the sick people who can get and have guns etc., I'm not crazy about "open carry" type of activities as I'm out and about trying to have a good time.

                                  Some states do and some states don't. I hope my state (MD) doesn't.
                                  Signature

                                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319238].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                                  We are in complete agreement. I just want to live my life with gun activism in this peaceful setting that I live in and have either the right to bear arms or the right not to, the right to go to public places without feeling like I'm on a military base, etc.
                                  Not to be a ball buster here. but military bases as well as recruitments centers in the US are gun free zones
                                  I don't really care if I'm out in public and there are people there with concealed carry guns. They aren't the people you need to worry about. I also don't rely on others for my safety or protection.
                                  Signature

                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319245].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                                    Banned
                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                    Not to be a ball buster here. but military bases as well as recruitments centers in the US are gun free zones
                                    I don't really care if I'm out in public and there are people there with concealed carry guns. They aren't the people you need to worry about. I also don't rely on others for my safety or protection.
                                    Yeah, I read that after the Ft Hood shooting and I'd forgotten it. Concealed carry doesn't bother me at all. This is not what I consider a relaxing dining experience.



                                    Gun Advocates Spook Fast Food Workers Into Hiding in Freezer - ABC News

                                    Burritos and assault rifles don’t mix, a nervous Chipotle suggests after Texas stunt

                                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                    The one and only Lou Dobbs says...

                                    Public schools, public school boards should demand a return to the Judeo-Christian ethic, to the practice of religion in our schools, prayer in schools, in my opinion.

                                    And, there is almost a straight line between what happened in 1963 and the denial of the right to pray in our public schools, and violence in our schools and our society, that has risen exponentially over that time.
                                    Well, along with the right not to bear arms, I also want the right to be free of religion in schools and want the separation of church and state that the Constitution provides for. Children should not have to be subjected to religions that they may not belong to.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319342].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                                      Yeah, I read that after the Ft Hood shooting and I'd forgotten it. Concealed carry doesn't bother me at all. This is not what I consider a relaxing dining experience.



                                      Gun Advocates Spook Fast Food Workers Into Hiding in Freezer - ABC News

                                      Burritos and assault rifles don't mix, a nervous Chipotle suggests after Texas stunt



                                      Well, along with the right not to bear arms, I also want the right to be free of religion in schools and want the separation of church and state that the Constitution provides for. Children should not have to be subjected to religions that they may not belong to.
                                      Same here. Those guys are pretty much idiots. Like I've said before I'm not a big fan of guns, but that only applies to me. As long a person can make a responsible decision on owning one and being responsible with it after, I'm fine and don't much care.I'm pretty much that way with most things though like gay marriage, following a religion, etc.
                                      As for what TL posted, well he's just another idiot (Dobbs that is) in my book. He's like that old broke watch story, you know "Even a broke watch has the right time twice a day, this just ain't that time.".
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319384].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author alistair
    I think I've just entered the twilight zone.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317114].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    I wonder what excuse will be dragged out for this one:

    11 year old boy shoots 8 year old girl in argument over puppy

    Neighbors said the senseless shooting was sparked by the girl innocently declining to let the boy play with her dog.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317618].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      I wonder what excuse will...
      She should have been armed?
      It's a false flag?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10317643].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I wonder how many people are "on the brink" for one reason or another in the U.S.A. and could use a good dose of psychological counseling.

    If it's 10% of the population then that means at least 32.5 Million folks are running around "on the brink".
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10318824].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    The one and only Lou Dobbs says...


    Public schools, public school boards should demand a return to the Judeo-Christian ethic, to the practice of religion in our schools, prayer in schools, in my opinion.

    And, there is almost a straight line between what happened in 1963 and the denial of the right to pray in our public schools, and violence in our schools and our society, that has risen exponentially over that time.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319329].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Hey - I have a website member that lives not too far from that school, and used to work at the college there. Yesterday the college was evacuated for a bomb threat.

    Also - Obama said he was going to visit and the town has basically told him they don't want him there.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319406].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Hey - I have a website member that lives not too far from that school, and used to work at the college there. Yesterday the college was evacuated for a bomb threat.

      Also - Obama said he was going to visit and the town has basically told him they don't want him there.
      Yes. Because showing up shows disrespect, just like not showing up.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319424].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        the town has basically told him they don't want him there
        Maybe because they don't want their town turned into a media frenzy - they don't want the families of victims having to put up with the traffic jams and security of a presidential visit. Perhaps they prefer to have their memorials led by people who knew the victims and their families and not be scenery for "news at 6". Could be that would be the response about ANY president or top official who wanted to visit at this time.

        I don't question his motives - but such a visit is disruptive and I think the people there have a right to mourn in their own way.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319540].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I have a feeling that sheriff doesn't want him there and may make a bid for even more national pub - with a inappropriate remark. He may see this as his chance to get on the right wing speaker circuit.


    I wouldn't let his crazy ass near the POTUS anyway since he's one of those Sandy Hook truthers.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...y-hook-truther

    But has any town/county official, victim's family or anyone from the area at all said anything publicly about not wanting him there?
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319564].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319602].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      The city of Roseburg has released a statement in support of President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to Roseburg.

      “Since the announcement that President Obama may be in the Roseburg area on Friday... We wish to be clear that Mayor (Larry) Rich, City Council President (Tom) Ryan and the Roseburg City Council welcome the president to Roseburg and will extend him every courtesy,” the state mentioned said.
      http://www.nrtoday.com/news/18524706...resident-obama
      I would bet most of the citizens in this city are happy to have the POTUS visit the city to give personal condolences to the victim's families.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10319685].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        City of Roseburg releases statement welcoming President Obama | NRToday.com
        I would bet most of the citizens in this city are happy to have the POTUS visit the city to give personal condolences to the victim's families.
        Yep ...
        Conservative Oregon newspaper warns President Obama he’s “not welcome” to meet with Umpqua shooting victims
        Right-wing Roseburg publisher complains to Bill O'Reilly
        The victim's families don't have to meet with the President if they don't want to. We'll see how many do or don't, in spite of the right wing publisher and Bill O'Reilly. As for politicizing the visit, from Brietfart to Carson to O'Reilly to this unknown right wing publisher, they are politicizing the tragedy.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320231].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          I guess we can always count on a few here to turn a discussion of a tragedy into an argument about POTUS, can't we?

          That's disgusting to me - this has nothing to do with politics but some people cannot turn it off.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
          what it is instead of what you think it should be.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320452].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Let's discuss disgusting.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10320613].message }}

Trending Topics