- Thread starter JelloStorm
- Start date
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Author of the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This is where and how our children were rendered defenseless in our schools.
Just giving credit where credit is due.
So, Herb, how's that gun free schools idea working out for you...?
Greg </div></div>
Herb looks like a good candidate for a ___. I can't even begin to describe how sick and tired I am of people like this.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Author of the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. This is where and how our children were rendered defenseless in our schools.
Just giving credit where credit is due.
So, Herb, how's that gun free schools idea working out for you...?
Greg </div></div>
Herb looks like a good candidate for a ___. I can't even begin to describe how sick and tired I am of people like this.
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cobaltbomb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In austria every person who wants to get a semi auto rifle or a handgun needs to undergo a mental test. the guns then need to be locked up in a safe, and the police will come and see your guns every 5 years.
this test doesnt help much, because with this test you can sort out a dumb maniac, but an intelligent maniac wont be detected, as long as he doesnt tell the truth in the test, and knows what he should say, and what is common sense.
we have, every year around christmas, "family tradgedies" all over europe, mostly with illegal guns or knives from people that went insane.
with obligatory locked up guns you can prevent occasional theft, but some lunatic that really wants to, would be abled to get the key or cut the safe open anyways. He could take a big knive or brew some explosives at home.
just look at the school shooting in winnenden in germany where gun laws are very strict, where a boy that was bullied freaked out with the gun of his father. eventually he managed to get a hold of a gun when his father forgot one outside the safe. the problem here was not the gun of the fahther but the bullied boy who was treated like shit in school day after day, and eventually comitted suicide and retaliated before that.
another example:
a friend of mine for example has gotten shizophrenic in his late 20s and he had a hunting rifle that i had sold to him some years before that. till that time he was a intelligent guy with no mental problems.
after i knew about his condition i gave him back the money and got the gun from him back with his consent.
so even though we have strong gun controle and mental tests it still it is up to friends and relatives to act responsible.
he is still in bad condition, and refuses to take medicin and refuses to recognize his problem.
Although he has no more guns, he could steal them from some of his relatives, i know his father and uncle have some, or from me easily. he could buy one on the black market with a bit of trying. he could steel them from centralized places (shooting clubs) or the unmanned police staion at night. Even though he doesnt have a gun himself he could easily get one , just like the shooter in newtown did.
the doctors should be abled to force him to take his pills and stay in hospital untill he is sane again.
but that doesnt happen
he was released although he was not taking his pills, and there is nothing we can do
<span style="font-weight: bold">we have to rely on him that he doesnt freak out.</span>
if it is not possible to prevent these shootings to happen in countries with strong gun controle in place and relative few guns around , it will never be possible to stop these things from happening by gun controle means in the US where guns are much more plentiful anyways.
we have to look at the real cause of the problem:
bullying in schools and problems with parents and teachers
no proper education of children
mental illnesses untreated
especially for boys and young men the educational system is not suited, its girls behaviour that is encouraged, boys are left out.
beeing wild , running around etc is bad behaviour.
physical violence to sort out problems among boys is not allowed any more, but psychological cruelties are tolerated.
boys very often dont know how to behave as a man properly any more, as many grow up without fathers, and only female teachers.
no wonder that some freak out eventually and turn into maniacs.
</div></div>
<span style="font-style: italic">
<span style="font-weight: bold">Very, very insightful post. People would be well served to read it, whether it be in government or simply voters. Frankly, our education system was designed by socialists/progressives and it, ultimately, has created a complete disconnect between students, parents, and morals. It has repressed human nature and ultimately attempted to churn out cookie-cutter human beings that regurgitate what is expected of them rather than celebrating individualism and independent thinking.</span></span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cobaltbomb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In austria every person who wants to get a semi auto rifle or a handgun needs to undergo a mental test. the guns then need to be locked up in a safe, and the police will come and see your guns every 5 years.
this test doesnt help much, because with this test you can sort out a dumb maniac, but an intelligent maniac wont be detected, as long as he doesnt tell the truth in the test, and knows what he should say, and what is common sense.
we have, every year around christmas, "family tradgedies" all over europe, mostly with illegal guns or knives from people that went insane.
with obligatory locked up guns you can prevent occasional theft, but some lunatic that really wants to, would be abled to get the key or cut the safe open anyways. He could take a big knive or brew some explosives at home.
just look at the school shooting in winnenden in germany where gun laws are very strict, where a boy that was bullied freaked out with the gun of his father. eventually he managed to get a hold of a gun when his father forgot one outside the safe. the problem here was not the gun of the fahther but the bullied boy who was treated like shit in school day after day, and eventually comitted suicide and retaliated before that.
another example:
a friend of mine for example has gotten shizophrenic in his late 20s and he had a hunting rifle that i had sold to him some years before that. till that time he was a intelligent guy with no mental problems.
after i knew about his condition i gave him back the money and got the gun from him back with his consent.
so even though we have strong gun controle and mental tests it still it is up to friends and relatives to act responsible.
he is still in bad condition, and refuses to take medicin and refuses to recognize his problem.
Although he has no more guns, he could steal them from some of his relatives, i know his father and uncle have some, or from me easily. he could buy one on the black market with a bit of trying. he could steel them from centralized places (shooting clubs) or the unmanned police staion at night. Even though he doesnt have a gun himself he could easily get one , just like the shooter in newtown did.
the doctors should be abled to force him to take his pills and stay in hospital untill he is sane again.
but that doesnt happen
he was released although he was not taking his pills, and there is nothing we can do
<span style="font-weight: bold">we have to rely on him that he doesnt freak out.</span>
if it is not possible to prevent these shootings to happen in countries with strong gun controle in place and relative few guns around , it will never be possible to stop these things from happening by gun controle means in the US where guns are much more plentiful anyways.
we have to look at the real cause of the problem:
bullying in schools and problems with parents and teachers
no proper education of children
mental illnesses untreated
especially for boys and young men the educational system is not suited, its girls behaviour that is encouraged, boys are left out.
beeing wild , running around etc is bad behaviour.
physical violence to sort out problems among boys is not allowed any more, but psychological cruelties are tolerated.
boys very often dont know how to behave as a man properly any more, as many grow up without fathers, and only female teachers.
no wonder that some freak out eventually and turn into maniacs.
</div></div>
<span style="font-style: italic">
<span style="font-weight: bold">Very, very insightful post. People would be well served to read it, whether it be in government or simply voters. Frankly, our education system was designed by socialists/progressives and it, ultimately, has created a complete disconnect between students, parents, and morals. It has repressed human nature and ultimately attempted to churn out cookie-cutter human beings that regurgitate what is expected of them rather than celebrating individualism and independent thinking.</span></span>
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
Furthermore, it hasn't been pointed out, but mass-shootings in the US have been on a steady decline since 2000. The actual peak was in the 1920s. Something to think about. My father claimed school shootings and mass-shootings didn't happen when he was a kid in the 50s and 60s. I found about 30 examples for him which he'd never heard of. It goes to show you that this is being bombarded and plastered all over our 24-hour media when that wasn't the case in years past.
Furthermore, let it be known your child is 20,000x more likely to die from drowning than a firearm. Certainly, any child dieing is tragic, but don't try to kid yourself that "we've got to protect our children" when there isn't crap being done about drowning deaths, motor-vehicle accidents, and all the more dangerous things that occur every day. Don't try to bullshit your way into draconian gun control measure that do not work. After all, CT is one of the strictest gun-control states as it is that already has an "assault-weapon" ban.
Furthermore, it hasn't been pointed out, but mass-shootings in the US have been on a steady decline since 2000. The actual peak was in the 1920s. Something to think about. My father claimed school shootings and mass-shootings didn't happen when he was a kid in the 50s and 60s. I found about 30 examples for him which he'd never heard of. It goes to show you that this is being bombarded and plastered all over our 24-hour media when that wasn't the case in years past.
Furthermore, let it be known your child is 20,000x more likely to die from drowning than a firearm. Certainly, any child dieing is tragic, but don't try to kid yourself that "we've got to protect our children" when there isn't crap being done about drowning deaths, motor-vehicle accidents, and all the more dangerous things that occur every day. Don't try to bullshit your way into draconian gun control measure that do not work. After all, CT is one of the strictest gun-control states as it is that already has an "assault-weapon" ban.
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
Part of the problem is that the masses feel the 2nd is "old and outdated" and we no longer need it to protect ourselves from the government...which we should trust. They don't have any personal attachment to the 2nd, so they are happy to let it go.
Perhaps we should suggest turning this argument on its head and hit them where it DOES hurt. Since we can apparently trust the government, the 4th Amendment is also outdated. You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, after all. If the gun crime rate of a city is about a certain level, go through and do a house-to-house sweep for illegal weapons. That would be gun control that would actually take weapons out of the hands of criminals.
Or, look at how badly the media has been stirring everyone up with false information and yellow press. Perhaps with the speed of information today, freedom of the press does more harm than good. Let's institute a government panel to fact-check information before it can be released by the press channels.
I don't support any of this of course, but it is taking the same argument being used against the 2nd and applying it in a way that would be understood by the libs.
Part of the problem is that the masses feel the 2nd is "old and outdated" and we no longer need it to protect ourselves from the government...which we should trust. They don't have any personal attachment to the 2nd, so they are happy to let it go.
Perhaps we should suggest turning this argument on its head and hit them where it DOES hurt. Since we can apparently trust the government, the 4th Amendment is also outdated. You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, after all. If the gun crime rate of a city is about a certain level, go through and do a house-to-house sweep for illegal weapons. That would be gun control that would actually take weapons out of the hands of criminals.
Or, look at how badly the media has been stirring everyone up with false information and yellow press. Perhaps with the speed of information today, freedom of the press does more harm than good. Let's institute a government panel to fact-check information before it can be released by the press channels.
I don't support any of this of course, but it is taking the same argument being used against the 2nd and applying it in a way that would be understood by the libs.
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
If we are going to restrict the 2nd because its old and outdated, we should restrict the first, perhaps? Make it a crime to "report" unverifiable information? Perhaps the 16th Amendment is also old and out-dated and the citizenry should stop participation in that one as well?
If we are going to restrict the 2nd because its old and outdated, we should restrict the first, perhaps? Make it a crime to "report" unverifiable information? Perhaps the 16th Amendment is also old and out-dated and the citizenry should stop participation in that one as well?
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we are going to restrict the 2nd because its old and outdated, we should restrict the first, perhaps? Make it a crime to "report" unverifiable information? Perhaps the 16th Amendment is also old and out-dated and the citizenry should stop participation in that one as well? </div></div>
The 4th & 10th have been dead for a while now too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we are going to restrict the 2nd because its old and outdated, we should restrict the first, perhaps? Make it a crime to "report" unverifiable information? Perhaps the 16th Amendment is also old and out-dated and the citizenry should stop participation in that one as well? </div></div>
The 4th & 10th have been dead for a while now too.
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
Can ya imagine the OUTRAGE we'd hear if a Republican proposed registration & permitting for internet bloggers?
Can ya imagine the OUTRAGE we'd hear if a Republican proposed registration & permitting for internet bloggers?
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Prevent tyranny? That is the most archaic argument around. You are already under the control and dominion of the government. Groceries, fuel, consumer goods never get cheaper appreciably because business has the protection of Congress, and if Congress wanted, when push came to shove, attack its citizens you really believe your small arms fire will be affective. Oh my goodness. Please smell the coffee. You're getting screwed and you don't even know it. Study up. Begin with the topic of The Rothschilds. </div></div>
This is why I believe in full unrestricted access of weapons to the Law abiding citizens! The 2nd doe not differentiate what type of arms and should not. If the government has one people should be able to have one! If you can purchase an Abrams then so be it! They didn't say oh you can't buy a rifles musket while the norm was a smoothbore! They didn't say you can't buy a cannon!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Casey Simpson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Prevent tyranny? That is the most archaic argument around. You are already under the control and dominion of the government. Groceries, fuel, consumer goods never get cheaper appreciably because business has the protection of Congress, and if Congress wanted, when push came to shove, attack its citizens you really believe your small arms fire will be affective. Oh my goodness. Please smell the coffee. You're getting screwed and you don't even know it. Study up. Begin with the topic of The Rothschilds. </div></div>
This is why I believe in full unrestricted access of weapons to the Law abiding citizens! The 2nd doe not differentiate what type of arms and should not. If the government has one people should be able to have one! If you can purchase an Abrams then so be it! They didn't say oh you can't buy a rifles musket while the norm was a smoothbore! They didn't say you can't buy a cannon!
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
Well, one thing is for sure, small arms have been quite effective in the past...
Well, one thing is for sure, small arms have been quite effective in the past...
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
It's not unreasonable to say that folks are surprised to learn that there were mass shootings in the '50's and '60's. It's also reasonable to remind those same folks that we didn't have a culture that's permeated with 24hr live news outlets. Those outlets have to fill the empty airtime, and some things become news that never were, and there are undoubtedly some that never should have.
It's maybe comforting to speak out in terms of resistance or standing fast. Folks will do that according to conscience, and I can't tell them they're wrong. I will tell them that such actions may be irrelevant, and may even be an anticipation of something entirely different from what's actually coming. It's quite possible we're facing in the wrong direction.
Never a major fan of the NRA, nevertheless, I respect their current reticence, and eagerly await their comments and contributions to this melee. I hope they adopt a position that recommends calm reason. I hope they can see the forest for the trees, and can provide guidance that prominently reflects the heartfelt grief so many of us law abiding and decent gun owners are feeling right along parallel with everyone else. If we are to have a place at this table, and speak in a voice that can be heard above the din, that voice cannot begin by drawing lines in sand, screaming demands, or hurling epithets.
As I have said before, we need to begin by just listening. At least, we must listen. We have listened before, often from a position that has not been respected. I think we need to do this one with more reservation and more contemplation, and recognize that adamant positions and talking points didn't work in the past, and have less chance of success now.
We need to listen first.
Greg
It's not unreasonable to say that folks are surprised to learn that there were mass shootings in the '50's and '60's. It's also reasonable to remind those same folks that we didn't have a culture that's permeated with 24hr live news outlets. Those outlets have to fill the empty airtime, and some things become news that never were, and there are undoubtedly some that never should have.
It's maybe comforting to speak out in terms of resistance or standing fast. Folks will do that according to conscience, and I can't tell them they're wrong. I will tell them that such actions may be irrelevant, and may even be an anticipation of something entirely different from what's actually coming. It's quite possible we're facing in the wrong direction.
Never a major fan of the NRA, nevertheless, I respect their current reticence, and eagerly await their comments and contributions to this melee. I hope they adopt a position that recommends calm reason. I hope they can see the forest for the trees, and can provide guidance that prominently reflects the heartfelt grief so many of us law abiding and decent gun owners are feeling right along parallel with everyone else. If we are to have a place at this table, and speak in a voice that can be heard above the din, that voice cannot begin by drawing lines in sand, screaming demands, or hurling epithets.
As I have said before, we need to begin by just listening. At least, we must listen. We have listened before, often from a position that has not been respected. I think we need to do this one with more reservation and more contemplation, and recognize that adamant positions and talking points didn't work in the past, and have less chance of success now.
We need to listen first.
Greg
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HK4545</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is why I believe in full unrestricted access of weapons to the Law abiding citizens! The 2nd doe not differentiate what type of arms and should not. If the government has one people should be able to have one! If you can purchase an Abrams then so be it! They didn't say oh you can't buy a rifles musket while the norm was a smoothbore! They didn't say you can't buy a cannon! </div></div>
I am of the opinion the founders intended to prevent a disparity of force, when crafting the 2nd Amendment.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HK4545</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is why I believe in full unrestricted access of weapons to the Law abiding citizens! The 2nd doe not differentiate what type of arms and should not. If the government has one people should be able to have one! If you can purchase an Abrams then so be it! They didn't say oh you can't buy a rifles musket while the norm was a smoothbore! They didn't say you can't buy a cannon! </div></div>
I am of the opinion the founders intended to prevent a disparity of force, when crafting the 2nd Amendment.
Re: CT elementary school shooting.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/urrRcgB581w"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/urrRcgB581w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Is it for real? I don't watch US news but i've read some what seemed at the time far fetched sites claiming a lot of big media houses using actors for big stories or "real folks" interviews and now seeing this and some others makes me go Hmmmm?
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/urrRcgB581w"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/urrRcgB581w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Is it for real? I don't watch US news but i've read some what seemed at the time far fetched sites claiming a lot of big media houses using actors for big stories or "real folks" interviews and now seeing this and some others makes me go Hmmmm?
Similar threads
