Jump to content
Jameson76

Sad sign of the times

Recommended Posts

The news media makes these kids super stars, their name is on the news for a good 2 weeks. If a looser kid that feels like a nobody wants to go out with a bang they know all they have to do is become a mass school shooter. The bigger the body count the higher the "score" in their minds.  They will be remembered and that is important to them. The news media loves mass shootings, it drives up their ratings and gives them a chance to berate the NRA, gun owners,  the right wing, and pin the blame on Trump. 

Some kids on SSRI drugs to treat depression can reach the point that they do not care about their own life or the life of people around them because of the effects of the drug and become very dangerous.

I can't think of a mass shooter under the age of 25 that was not taking a SSRI drug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

You see it as "a gun problem", but it's not as simple as that. It is much more than that.

Actually, I don't, up to a point. I know, all those guns would happily sit in a drawer or cupboard and not do any harm to anyone. And yes, it's way more complicated that that, sadly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ianwilkins said:

Actually, I don't, up to a point. I know, all those guns would happily sit in a drawer or cupboard and not do any harm to anyone. And yes, it's way more complicated that that, sadly.

 

I feel the same about dangerous people. Come election time, we often hear that the US has more incarcerated/institutionalized than any other nation, perhaps too many of certain "classifications" and not enough of other "classifications".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:59 AM, Gwaihir said:

you called 6 million Americans terrorists, and you want to talk about calling people dishonest? 

One - I didn't call 6 million Americans terrorists.  I called the NRA a terrorist organization.  You're the one who extrapolated from that to calling the members themselves terrorists. 

Two - the NRA itself claims they have 5 million members - not 6 million as you have stated.

Who is being dishonest here?

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA a terrorist organization?  Seriously???  I missed that comment.

LOL ....about as much as the BSA in my estimation.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

One - I didn't call 6 million Americans terrorists.  I called the NRA a terrorist organization.  You're the one who extrapolated from that to calling the members themselves terrorists. 

Two - the NRA itself claims they have 5 million members - not 6 million as you have stated.

Who is being dishonest here?

 

The NRA is it's members, it's members vote, it's members pay their dues and have an active roll in what the organization does.  So yes, you called its members terrorists.  That's like saying "ISIS is a terrorist organization! I didn't say the suicide bomber and beheader individual members are terrorists, just the organization" it's intellectually dishonest and a back peddle. 

 

The NRA is 5million+ and is closing in on 6, in the first post I said "almost 6 million", and in heated response left out the almost, I'll add it in for clarity. 

So you, you are the dishonest one. 

On 2/20/2018 at 10:59 AM, Gwaihir said:

you called 6 million Americans terrorists, and you want to talk about calling people dishonest? 

"almost 6 million" 

Can't edit, so I'll clarify here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2018 at 12:28 PM, Gwaihir said:

Except that the 2nd Amendment as it's written, is blatantly clear that gun control legislation is in violation of the enumeration of rights.   If we said there should be heavy restrictions on who should and shouldn't be able to speak openly or publish news... there would be almost universal agreement this is in violation of the 1st Amendment, regardless of the merits of such a claim. Heck, Donald Trump even proposed such an idea in response to his "fake news" claims, and there was collective rejection of the premise out of hand, despite the technology advances since the amendment and the ability to disseminate vast amounts of fake and potentially harmful news to millions of people in seconds. 

I am not arguing that free speech should be against the law, in fact, I served to defend the Consitution and those rights.  Unfortunately, many people are in fact unwilling/unable to engage in civil debate, particularly among our elected officials who seem to think their primary purpose is to get elected/re-elected rather than serve. 

And as adamant as I am about defending all of the rights in the Consitution, you are incorrect that in the assertion that the 2nd amendment is a blanket protection against any legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

And as adamant as I am about defending all of the rights in the Constitution, you are incorrect that in the assertion that the 2nd amendment is a blanket protection against any legislation. 

I support the 2nd amendment and the rights therein. However, I believe the Founding Fathers would not have meant this right extends to such weaponry as we have now. I own firearms. I own firearms that have a practical purpose such as hunting or defending my family/property. I do NOT own firearms like an AR-15, sniper rifle or anything like that because I believe they have a military purpose.

I think if the Founding Fathers were alive today they would be appalled at the extremes on both sides of this debate. We do need arms and should have them. We don't need arms that can take out a company of citizens in less than 2 minutes.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

... I think if the Founding Fathers were alive today they would be appalled at the extremes on both sides of this debate. We do need arms and should have them. We don't need arms that can take out a company of citizens in less than 2 minutes.

If the current distribution of arms has given our communities well-regulated militias capable of, for example, defending school-children or concert-goers from nihilists bent on robbing souls of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we have achieved the goal of the 2nd amendment.

If, on the other hand, we give such enemies of The People an unbalanced advantage in their assault on free society, we collectively find ourselves in violation of the 2nd amendment. The question then becomes: how to bring us all back into compliance with the intent of a well regulated Militia?

Wrapped up in this is a profound mistrust of government, neighboring communities, other nationalities, recent immigrants, the opposite sex, bloggers, etc ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

I support the 2nd amendment and the rights therein. However, I believe the Founding Fathers would not have meant this right extends to such weaponry as we have now. I own firearms. I own firearms that have a practical purpose such as hunting or defending my family/property. I do NOT own firearms like an AR-15, sniper rifle or anything like that because I believe they have a military purpose.

I think if the Founding Fathers were alive today they would be appalled at the extremes on both sides of this debate. We do need arms and should have them. We don't need arms that can take out a company of citizens in less than 2 minutes.

I'll start by saying I don't personally own any sort of 'AR' and I don't think that anyone really needs one.  I see them as a macho kindof thing.... like owning a pit bull dog when their are much better breeds available.

BUT

I disagree with your statement.  I think it IS EXACTLY what they meant.

Think about the context of what these people had just done.  With privately owned weaponry...muskets mostly that at the time were state of the art.... they overthrew an oppressive power. 

I think they wanted folks to not get themselves into the very same situation that England itself did many years later in the late 1930's....faced a blitzkrieg and very few households guns....and definitely NOT state of the art ones.... on hand to defend their homeland with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Committee_for_the_Defense_of_British_Homes

I tell you what, I think those guys (Founding Fathers, generally) could see into the future and the more I've learned and read about them over the years I'm often amazed by their foresight.  I am very cautious now to ever second guess them....

Edited by blw2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, blw2 said:

I tell you what, I think those guys (Founding Fathers, generally) could see into the future and the more I've learned and read about them over the years I'm often amazed by their foresight.  I am very cautious now to ever second guess them....

Citizen militia members of the time typically did not own personal canon, swords or bayonets. They did not own many of the weapons (or shot) that most of the military used or had access to. The Founding Fathers could never envision the proliferation and variety of weapons available today.Their intent was to allow the people to defend themselves and rise up to meet any challenge from an opposing foreign power or government (even our own).

They did not mean for the right to bear arms to be equal to that of the military, per se. Which is why the 2nd Amendment reads in full "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." This does not mean that the people have the right to have the same weapons as the military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in regards to the comparison to the 1st amendment... it is well regarded, understood and supported by SC decisions that some limits are allowed for the 1st.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Let's keep this a courteous discussion where different opinions are expressed and not a argument that some one has to win.  Thanks.

Is this directed at anyone in particular? 

The discussion seems fairly civil as far as I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×