PDA

View Full Version : At Least 26 Dead in Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School


Bonnie
12-14-2012, 07:04 PM
:cry: :cry: :cry:

At Least 26 Dead in Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

Published December 14, 2012
FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/police-respond-to-shooting-at-connecticut-elementary-school/

DEVELOPING: Authorities say at least 26 people, including 18 children, were killed Friday when a gunman clad in black military gear opened fire inside a Connecticut elementary school.

A law enforcement official said the shooter, who is dead, was from New Jersey and had ties to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Authorities recovered a Glock and Sig Sauer 9mm handgun, but it was unclear who killed the shooter, who wore black combat garb and a military vest.

Local news outlets report that the shooting occurred inside a kindergarten classroom, and that all the pupils in that classroom are unaccounted for.

An official with knowledge of the situation said the 20-year-old gunman, whose name has not been released, also had a .223-caliber rifle. The motive is not yet known.

Police are also questioning another man in connection with the shooting. Witnesses told the Connecticut Post that a handcuffed man, dressed in camouflage, was led out of a nearby woods by officers.

Shortly after 9:40 a.m., authorities reported that a shooter was in the main office of the school. A person in one room had "numerous gunshot wounds," police told the Hartford Courant.

A dispatcher at the Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Corps said a teacher was shot in the foot and taken to Danbury Hospital. Local news outlets also reported that the principal was among those shot.

Parent Lisa Procaccini told Fox News that her daughter was sitting in a classroom when she and others heard gun shots.

"She was in a small class -- a reading group and they started hearing bangs," Procaccini said. "Her teacher, and I’m grateful for this, rushed kids into the bathroom and locked the door. They told kids it was hammering and tried to keep them calm.”

"Children were crying," Procaccini said. "She did tell me about a little boy that was in a police officer’s arms, bleeding. I don’t know if she gets it."

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said two firearms were recovered from the scene.

President Obama was notified of the shooting around 10:30 am ET, White House officials said.

The Newtown School District has locked down schools as a preventive measure to ensure the safety of students and staff.

A statement on the district's website stated that afternoon kindergarten classes have been canceled.

The elementary school has close to 700 students.

Newtown is in Fairfield County, about 45 miles southwest of Hartford and 60 miles northeast of New York City.

rearnakedchoke
12-14-2012, 07:16 PM
sad ...

Bonnie
12-14-2012, 07:20 PM
sad ...

Heartbreaking! :cry:

County Mike
12-14-2012, 08:47 PM
Sick people in this world.

I propose teaching all teachers about gun safety and how to shoot. Then, every classroom should have a loaded shotgun in a locked cabinet. Each teacher would have the responsibility of defending their students.

Maybe the knowledge of armed teachers would be enough to keep these a-holes out of the schools in the first place.

Bonnie
12-14-2012, 09:00 PM
Sick people in this world.

I propose teaching all teachers about gun safety and how to shoot. Then, every classroom should have a loaded shotgun in a locked cabinet. Each teacher would have the responsibility of defending their students.

Maybe the knowledge of armed teachers would be enough to keep these a-holes out of the schools in the first place.

That wouldn't necessarily help if the "crazy" is a student (or teacher) in the school, who would then have access to that weapon. If they know it's there, believe me, they'll find a way to get ahold of it. Not to mention, if it's known publicly that there are loaded weapons to be had there, those that would try to steal them. I don't think there's any way to be totally prepared for people who are angry and decide others are going to pay.

They reported that this school was normally locked down at 9:30, and anyone wanting to get in after that time had to identify themselves before being admitted. The shooter's mother worked there as a teacher so he might have been well known there and easily admitted, or maybe he went in before. They reported that his mother was found dead at her home there in Newtown, CT. I think her classroom was one of the rooms he went into where he shot and killed the children. He was obviously one messed up human being!

MattHughesRocks
12-15-2012, 04:30 AM
I don't even know what to say :cry:

Bonnie
12-15-2012, 04:54 AM
Just to update, two children were brought to the hospital but were pronounced dead, so that's 20 children who died and six adults, not counting the shooter and his mom.

One little six-year old saw the shooter shoot his teacher; he and two other children managed to run out the door all the way to the main road where a passerby picked them up and took them to the police station. He described to the police what he saw--he said he saw all these silver bullets (I guess casings) on the floor of the classroom, and when they ran out into the hall he saw more silver bullets on the floor, but they were red. :cry:

Neezar
12-15-2012, 04:21 PM
I was heartbroken yesterday. I couldn't help thinking of the parents. You never dream you will send your child to school only to be executed. When I got home last night and saw this picture......well, I wasn't able to go to sleep for many hours.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/psASWB8D1rrp_drCPxkcYg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNTE7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/afc887541f5cb623230f6a70670074ca.jpg

Neezar
12-15-2012, 04:31 PM
Sick people in this world.

I propose teaching all teachers about gun safety and how to shoot. Then, every classroom should have a loaded shotgun in a locked cabinet. Each teacher would have the responsibility of defending their students.

Maybe the knowledge of armed teachers would be enough to keep these a-holes out of the schools in the first place.

I would like to know how he got into the school. I am a substitute nurse at the schools, have been for 3 years. I was issued a badge. A badge swipe opens the doors to the school. However, a sub's badge doesn't. I have to go to the main office and sign in like a visitor. They all know me. They all know why I am there. But I still have to state my business, sign in, and be buzzed in. One school even commented once that they appreciated me not getting impatient with this. So some must complain. I told them that I felt better about it knowing they always followed policy on this! I think this is the first and best line of defense.

Even though this boy was family to one of the teachers he should not have been allowed in. Teachers don't need visitors at the school.

Maybe he stole his mom's badge. I hope so! I wouldn't want to be the one that allowed him in.

NateR
12-15-2012, 05:27 PM
Sick people in this world.

I propose teaching all teachers about gun safety and how to shoot. Then, every classroom should have a loaded shotgun in a locked cabinet. Each teacher would have the responsibility of defending their students.

Maybe the knowledge of armed teachers would be enough to keep these a-holes out of the schools in the first place.

I totally agree with that idea and I think simply the knowledge that the guns are there and that the faculty is trained to use them, would deter a large percentage of these shooters.

Kind of like that shooting in the movie theater during the Dark Knight Rises premiere. If just one of the theater patrons had been carrying a concealed weapon, then they could have stopped that shooter before the death toll rose as high as it did.

Of course, no security measure is going to stop 100% of threats, that's why you need overlapping security measures. Plus, I think the "if the guns are there then the crazy are going to get ahold of them!" argument is just nonsense. I'd like to see some statistics on how often these "crazy people" have been able to disarm police officers and use their own weapons against them. If the teachers are trained to use the firearms by the police, then you would almost totally eliminate that possibility.

BradW
12-15-2012, 08:25 PM
I totally agree with that idea and I think simply the knowledge that the guns are there and that the faculty is trained to use them, would deter a large percentage of these shooters.

Kind of like that shooting in the movie theater during the Dark Knight Rises premiere. If just one of the theater patrons had been carrying a concealed weapon, then they could have stopped that shooter before the death toll rose as high as it did.

Of course, no security measure is going to stop 100% of threats, that's why you need overlapping security measures. Plus, I think the "if the guns are there then the crazy are going to get ahold of them!" argument is just nonsense. I'd like to see some statistics on how often these "crazy people" have been able to disarm police officers and use their own weapons against them. If the teachers are trained to use the firearms by the police, then you would almost totally eliminate that possibility.

so you think school teachers would be able to protect children with fire arms the same way police could ?
the answer isnt more guns...the answer is actually less guns.

adamt
12-15-2012, 08:38 PM
so you think school teachers would be able to protect children with fire arms the same way police could ?
the answer isnt more guns...the answer is actually less guns.

yes, there were dozens of teachers at that school and no police officers, so , yes, i think the teachers could have protected the kids better, unless of course you want to put a cop in every classroom.....with all due respect to the police officers, they were of no value in this scenario, 100 cops showed up 20 minutes late, if they were there, i have no doubt they would have done well, but they weren't there, teachers were

adamt
12-15-2012, 08:44 PM
surely we have all seen the other school tragedy yesterday where 22 kids were stabbed in china,

should we ban knives???

Maybe we should anticipate tragedies. For instance, what if someone ran into a school classroom with gasoline and attempted to sling it around and set it on fire? To prevent that scenario from happening, maybe we should ban gasoline.


one last thought..... if guns are banned, shouldn't they be banned from movies and video games too? Tom cruise delayed the opening of jack reacher today, but shouldn't hollywoods glorification of death and evil and murder be permanently delayed? why don't we call for gun censorship before banning guns.... how many people would go for that? I haven't seen it, but correct me if I am wrong, but movies like the hunger games are derived from pure evil
and they are cheered on by society

BradW
12-15-2012, 08:54 PM
surely we have all seen the other school tragedy yesterday where 22 kids were stabbed in china,

should we ban knives???
Maybe we should anticipate tragedies. For instance, what if someone ran into a school classroom with gasoline and attempted to sling it around and set it on fire? To prevent that scenario from happening, maybe we should ban gasoline.


one last thought..... if guns are banned, shouldn't they be banned from movies and video games too? Tom cruise delayed the opening of jack reacher today, but shouldn't hollywoods glorification of death and evil and murder be permanently delayed? why don't we call for gun censorship before banning guns.... how many people would go for that? I haven't seen it, but correct me if I am wrong, but movies like the hunger games are derived from pure evil
and they are cheered on by society

none of them died from the knife attack but 26 died from the gun attack...

BradW
12-15-2012, 08:56 PM
yes, there were dozens of teachers at that school and no police officers, so , yes, i think the teachers could have protected the kids better, unless of course you want to put a cop in every classroom.....with all due respect to the police officers, they were of no value in this scenario, 100 cops showed up 20 minutes late, if they were there, i have no doubt they would have done well, but they weren't there, teachers were

there would have just been more dead teachers if they were all armed with guns.

Bonnie
12-15-2012, 11:13 PM
I would like to know how he got into the school.


They are saying he forced his way in but they didn't elaborate. :unsure:

I totally agree with that idea and I think simply the knowledge that the guns are there and that the faculty is trained to use them, would deter a large percentage of these shooters.

Of course, no security measure is going to stop 100% of threats, that's why you need overlapping security measures. Plus, I think the "if the guns are there then the crazy are going to get ahold of them!" argument is just nonsense. I'd like to see some statistics on how often these "crazy people" have been able to disarm police officers and use their own weapons against them. If the teachers are trained to use the firearms by the police, then you would almost totally eliminate that possibility.

Are you referring to my comment to Mike's post or something else? I believe in our right to bear arms, and in the right to protect ourselves, but I don't think having loaded firearms at the ready in schools is the wisest road to go down. How do you protect people in the school from someone who is already there, a teacher or a student, someone who is supposed to be there, and who now has this weapon? It's naive to think that those weapons couldn't get in the hands of people it wasn't meant for, OR, that someone in the school who has access to it couldn't one day go postal themselves!

What I said is below, and I think it is totally valid and not nonsense.

That wouldn't necessarily help if the "crazy" is a student (or teacher) in the school, who would then have access to that weapon. If they know it's there, believe me, they'll find a way to get ahold of it. Not to mention, if it's known publicly that there are loaded weapons to be had there, those that would try to steal them. I don't think there's any way to be totally prepared for people who are angry and decide others are going to pay.

NateR
12-16-2012, 12:26 AM
...the answer is actually less guns.

In your opinion, but I disagree. Why do you think these shooters primarily choose places like schools, movie theaters, political rallies, etc. to carry out these shootings? Because the chances of them encountering no armed resistance are pretty high.

Notice how places like police stations or military bases are rarely attacked like this? It's because potential shooters know that places like that hare heavily armed and the chances of them getting shot as soon as they brandish a firearm are really good.

All gun control laws do is ensure that only the insane and/or criminally minded portion of the population has access to guns. In other words, gun control laws actually make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

none of them died from the knife attack but 26 died from the gun attack...

So that makes it all better? The problem is with people not inanimate objects.


Are you referring to my comment to Mike's post or something else? I believe in our right to bear arms, and in the right to protect ourselves, but I don't think having loaded firearms at the ready in schools is the wisest road to go down. How do you protect people in the school from someone who is already there, a teacher or a student, someone who is supposed to be there, and who now has this weapon? It's naive to think that those weapons couldn't get in the hands of people it wasn't meant for, OR, that someone in the school who has access to it couldn't one day go postal themselves!

What I said is below, and I think it is totally valid and not nonsense.

Really? Does that actually happen? Teachers just decide to shoot up all the students that they work with every day? If you can cite some examples, then go right ahead. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty far-fetched scenario.

Besides, IF a teacher was truly intent on shooting up all of her/his own students, then I don't think the current laws would provide much of a deterrent at all.

As for the students being able to gain control of the guns, that could be prevented with the most basic of precautions.

Again, it's the knowledge that the shooter is going to be encountering armed resistance immediately after brandishing the firearm that I believe would provide the greatest deterrent to these kinds of shootings.

Of course, no law is going to stop all forms of violence, because human beings are evil and corrupted by our very natures. However, laws should never stand in the way of law-abiding citizens defending themselves from evil actions.

NateR
12-16-2012, 01:23 AM
Also, the shooter was 20 years old and the legal age for gun ownership in the state of Connecticut is 21. So, again, legal gun ownership laws are NOT the problem here.

As soon as this kid picked up a loaded weapon, he was in violation of Connecticut gun laws before he fired a single shot. One more law would have made no difference.

BradW
12-16-2012, 01:54 AM
Also, the shooter was 20 years old and the legal age for gun ownership in the state of Connecticut is 21. So, again, legal gun ownership laws are NOT the problem here.

As soon as this kid picked up a loaded weapon, he was in violation of Connecticut gun laws before he fired a single shot. One more law would have made no difference.

if his mother didn't have all these "LEGAL" guns readily available to him in their home then this would probably never have happend...

Silverback
12-16-2012, 03:36 AM
if his mother didn't have all these "LEGAL" guns readily available to him in their home then this would probably never have happend...

Would that be like saying the gun was as sick as the shooter ? :ninja::w00t::frantics:

Bonnie
12-16-2012, 04:30 AM
The problem is with people not inanimate objects.

Really? Does that actually happen? Teachers just decide to shoot up all the students that they work with every day? If you can cite some examples, then go right ahead. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty far-fetched scenario.

Besides, IF a teacher was truly intent on shooting up all of her/his own students, then I don't think the current laws would provide much of a deterrent at all.

As for the students being able to gain control of the guns, that could be prevented with the most basic of precautions.

Again, it's the knowledge that the shooter is going to be encountering armed resistance immediately after brandishing the firearm that I believe would provide the greatest deterrent to these kinds of shootings.

Of course, no law is going to stop all forms of violence, because human beings are evil and corrupted by our very natures. However, laws should never stand in the way of law-abiding citizens defending themselves from evil actions.

Nate, read what you said to Brad, "The problem is with people not inanimate objects." And that is the problem, "people...humans". And that's my point! A loaded gun in a locked cabinet is just that, it's not going anywhere by itself to shoot anybody. People are the unknown and unpredictable, you never know what might be going on with them, in their head, in their life, to set them off. They said Newtown, CT, was listed as one of the safest places to raise your family. Now they'll be forever known as the town where Adam Lanza killed 27 people, 20 of them children.

You and Mike talk about a shooter thinking twice if he knows he'll be encountering armed resistence...who, a shooter like this young man? Do you seriously think he was thinking with a sane rational mind; he shot his mother and then went to the school to shoot children. They said tonight that he shot each child multiple times, one child was shot 11 times. These kids were 6 and 7 years old. This is the mind that's going to be deterred? And what about the Fort Hood shooter, he definitely knew there were people there that had weapons, but that wasn't a deterrent, it wasn't going to stop him from shooting as many people as he could.

So, yeah, one day, it could be a teacher; we already know students will kill. Any human is capable of evil...right? Nothing is far-fetched where humans are concerned.

adamt
12-16-2012, 05:02 AM
Adam Lansza was a sick freak. Adam Lansza wanted to kill those kids. If Adam Lansza did not have a gun, do you think he would have found some way to do what he did? Or, as the media seems to think, would he have said to himself,"I want to murder 20 kids and make my name go down in history with dylan kleebold, timothy mcveigh, jeffery dahmer, charles manson, etc..., but, oh, wait just a dog gone second, guns are banned!!!! I can't get a gun!!! I no longer want to murder twenty kids and 6 adults!!!! I could never find a way to kill someone without a gun!!! I am going to be a respectable, valuable citizen now!"


Getting rid of guns would not get rid of sick freaks

NateR
12-16-2012, 06:08 AM
And what about the Fort Hood shooter, he definitely knew there were people there that had weapons, but that wasn't a deterrent, it wasn't going to stop him from shooting as many people as he could.

That was something different, it was a planned terrorist attack. However I knew someone would bring that up, which is why I qualified my statement about shooters not attacking police stations or military bases with the word "usually."

Anyways, the Ft. Hood shooter was a soldier himself. As a soldier he would have known exactly when and where to attack other soldiers so that their ability to defend themselves would be minimal.

NateR
12-16-2012, 06:19 AM
if his mother didn't have all these "LEGAL" guns readily available to him in their home then this would probably never have happend...

I haven't read any reports about where the guns came from. But it seems that you are simply making assumptions that they were just laying for anyone to grab, in order to justify your biases here.

Either way, you can't base laws off of individuals who are clearly deranged.

BradW
12-16-2012, 12:53 PM
I haven't read any reports about where the guns came from. But it seems that you are simply making assumptions that they were just laying for anyone to grab, in order to justify your biases here.

Either way, you can't base laws off of individuals who are clearly deranged.

i dont have any biases here Nate but you do....I personally really dont care what your gun laws are,but if you really want to know what the problem is you need to take off the blinders and look around.

if this person didn't have access to semi automatic weapons at home then this would not have happend....after all he did try to buy his own gun a few days before but was denied and went away empty handed,but his mother had an assault rifle at home that he had access to and he just used that instead.

BradW
12-16-2012, 12:58 PM
Would that be like saying the gun was as sick as the shooter ? :ninja::w00t::frantics:

no,it just means what it means...if he didnt have an assault rifle and a couple of semi automatic pistols at home he would have had a hard time finding a way to kill 20 children and 7 adults.

adamt
12-16-2012, 01:44 PM
no,it just means what it means...if he didnt have an assault rifle and a couple of semi automatic pistols at home he would have had a hard time finding a way to kill 20 children and 7 adults.

no, if he wanted to kill people he would have found a way to kill people.

timothy mcveigh didn't use a gun

the people that died on 9/11 didn't use guns

in fact those were much worse situations, maybe we should be happy about guns and that these little shootings get rid of sick whackos before they get ahold of fertilizer or an airplane.

Maybe we should ban fertilizer and airplanes, they killed more people than all the school shootings combined

BradW
12-16-2012, 01:53 PM
no, if he wanted to kill people he would have found a way to kill people.

timothy mcveigh didn't use a gun

the people that died on 9/11 didn't use guns

in fact those were much worse situations, maybe we should be happy about guns and that these little shootings get rid of sick whackos before they get ahold of fertilizer or an airplane.

Maybe we should ban fertilizer and airplanes, they killed more people than all the school shootings combined

so you are comparing this to 911 ? and the bombing of the federal building ?...seriously ?...wow...and you think its a good thing this guy killed 20 children with an assault rifle ?

tell me something..why do you feel a need to have access to an assault rifle ?
is that the best thing for hunting ? or you just like the idea of being able to kill a lot of people in a hurry...

NateR
12-16-2012, 05:30 PM
i dont have any biases here Nate but you do....I personally really dont care what your gun laws are,but if you really want to know what the problem is you need to take off the blinders and look around.

if this person didn't have access to semi automatic weapons at home then this would not have happend....after all he did try to buy his own gun a few days before but was denied and went away empty handed,but his mother had an assault rifle at home that he had access to and he just used that instead.

Again, where are you getting your information from? It seems to me that you are simply jumping to conclusions in order to support your personal opinion. Then you try to deflect attention away from your own biases by claiming that we are the ones who are biased.

NateR
12-16-2012, 05:33 PM
so you are comparing this to 911 ? and the bombing of the federal building ?...seriously ?...wow...and you think its a good thing this guy killed 20 children with an assault rifle ?

Your the one who implied that people getting stabbed was preferable to people getting shot, so maybe he was just following your line of reasoning.

tell me something..why do you feel a need to have access to an assault rifle ?
is that the best thing for hunting ? or you just like the idea of being able to kill a lot of people in a hurry...

It has nothing to do with hunting. It's about the US population being able to protect itself from the US government.

As Thomas Jefferson stated:
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

BradW
12-16-2012, 06:07 PM
Again, where are you getting your information from? It seems to me that you are simply jumping to conclusions in order to support your personal opinion. Then you try to deflect attention away from your own biases by claiming that we are the ones who are biased.

lol...where do i get my information from ?...the news like most people...other then you though it seems....lol.

BradW
12-16-2012, 06:17 PM
Your the one who implied that people getting stabbed was preferable to people getting shot, so maybe he was just following your line of reasoning.



It has nothing to do with hunting. It's about the US population being able to protect itself from the US government.


As Thomas Jefferson stated:

you should read the whole thread instead of cherry picking then maybe you would understand i was just replying to a comment that was directed towards me.

do you really think assault rifles are going to protect you from your government ?
one of the most lethal killing machines in the world is run by your government....you and your assault rifles wouldn't stand a chance...but feel free to dream on just the same.

adamt
12-16-2012, 06:57 PM
so you are comparing this to 911 ? and the bombing of the federal building ?...seriously ?...wow...and you think its a good thing this guy killed 20 children with an assault rifle ?

tell me something..why do you feel a need to have access to an assault rifle ?
is that the best thing for hunting ? or you just like the idea of being able to kill a lot of people in a hurry...

how is this any different from any other act of domestic terrorism killing innocent lives??? you said he couldn't have killed them without two hnadguns and a rifle, i showed you very clear proof and two incidences where others could and did kill without a single gun, you ignored that and then attempted to make me into a monster that was glad he killed 20 kids


why do the local law enforcement have assault rifles? will they ever need to kill alot of people in a hurry, aren't their handguns sufficient? tell me something, why shouldn't i have access to an "assault rifle"? what have i done wrong to have that right taken away?

BradW
12-16-2012, 07:08 PM
how is this any different from any other act of domestic terrorism killing innocent lives??? you said he couldn't have killed them without two hnadguns and a rifle, i showed you very clear proof and two incidences where others could and did kill without a single gun, you ignored that and then attempted to make me into a monster that was glad he killed 20 kids


why do the local law enforcement have assault rifles? will they ever need to kill alot of people in a hurry, aren't their handguns sufficient? tell me something, why shouldn't i have access to an "assault rifle"? what have i done wrong to have that right taken away?

so you are saying he has access to a 737 or equivalent to crash into the school ?
or he could round up enough fertilizer these days to blow up the school ?

like i said before i dont care about your gun laws...im just pointing out that the easy access to semi automatic hand guns and assult rifles is the reason a lot of this sort of thing happens in your country...
whens the last time somebody killed a bunch of people in a few minutes with a hunting rifle ?

keep your assault rifles...i really dont care.

im just sad that these children had to lose their lives to one.

adamt
12-16-2012, 07:10 PM
if i got on here and threatened to kill matt hughes, would nate ban my computer and keyboard or would he ban me? technically it is the keyboard and computer that did the threatening. maybe we should ban all keyboards and computers from being used to access matt hughes forums. people will only be able to use mobile phones, that way they won't be able to threaten matt hughes as efficiently.

makes as much sense as gun control, exact same, parallel logic

BradW
12-16-2012, 07:12 PM
if i got on here and threatened to kill matt hughes, would nate ban my computer and keyboard or would he ban me? technically it is the keyboard and computer that did the threatening. maybe we should ban all keyboards and computers from being used to access matt hughes forums. people will only be able to use mobile phones, that way they won't be able to threaten matt hughes as efficiently.

makes as much sense as gun control, exact same, parallel logic

your arguments make no sense.

adamt
12-16-2012, 07:15 PM
so you are saying he has access to a 737 or equivalent to crash into the school ?
or he could round up enough fertilizer these days to blow up the school ?

like i said before i dont care about your gun laws...im just pointing out that the easy access to semi automatic hand guns and assult rifles is the reason a lot of this sort of thing happens in your country...
whens the last time somebody killed a bunch of people in a few minutes with a hunting rifle ?

keep your assault rifles...i really dont care.

im just sad that these children had to lose their lives to one.

small planes are easily accesible and would kill a bunch of people. and it wouldn't take two tons of fertilizer, he could use a couple hundred pounds and you can still get diesel fuel and fertilizer, so.....

i have a bolt action hunting rifle that will shoot 5 shots in 10 seconds, still pretty fast

would you be sad if those kids got burned to death or stabbed?

BradW
12-16-2012, 07:22 PM
small planes are easily accesible and would kill a bunch of people. and it wouldn't take two tons of fertilizer, he could use a couple hundred pounds and you can still get diesel fuel and fertilizer, so.....

i have a bolt action hunting rifle that will shoot 5 shots in 10 seconds, still pretty fast

would you be sad if those kids got burned to death or stabbed?

so he has access to small planes now...lol.

in order to buy 2 hundred lbs of fertilizer these days you would have to show your
end use for it before they would sell it to him...but i thought you knew that so i didnt see the need to tell you that myself.

5 shots in 10 seconds...wow...so when hes reloading then what ?

every single person that was shot had at least 3 bullet wounds and as many as 11 for some...so your right...a hunting rifle could have inflicted just as much damage.:blink:

adamt
12-16-2012, 10:04 PM
your arguments make no sense.

WE AGREE ON SOMETHIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my point was to not make any sense, that is the exact same logic you are arguing should be used in these instances and gun control

adamt
12-16-2012, 10:16 PM
so he has access to small planes now...lol.

in order to buy 2 hundred lbs of fertilizer these days you would have to show your
end use for it before they would sell it to him...but i thought you knew that so i didnt see the need to tell you that myself.

5 shots in 10 seconds...wow...so when hes reloading then what ?

every single person that was shot had at least 3 bullet wounds and as many as 11 for some...so your right...a hunting rifle could have inflicted just as much damage.:blink:

no you really don't have to show your use for 200 pounds of fertilizer, there are all kinds of people that buy 3 or four bags of fertilizer and don't show an end use for it, many peoples yards get more fertilizer than that every year, all he would have to do is tell someone it is for his yard, a 200 pound fertilizer bomb is more than big enough to kill a few dozen people-------------and again you are the one arguing that if he didn't have guns he couldn't kill people

i don't personally own a plane, but i know where some are he didn't have a small plane but if he could steal an assault rifle then why couldn't he steal a small plane

he was using guns he stole from his mother and bought illegally on someone elses license

maybe we could ban drugs? maybe that would stop our drug problem

yes, you have really got me cornered on my hunting rifle argument :rolleyes:
those kids are more dead because they were shot 3-11 times instead of just once :rolleyes: and you know that if he was reloading his hunting rifle those kids would have jumped him and taken him down, so i guess they didn't have a chance because he didn't have to reload that often:rolleyes: that's a great argument!! lets make the bad guys use low capacity magazines so that the kids will have a chance to jump them when they reload

BradW
12-16-2012, 11:12 PM
no you really don't have to show your use for 200 pounds of fertilizer, there are all kinds of people that buy 3 or four bags of fertilizer and don't show an end use for it, many peoples yards get more fertilizer than that every year, all he would have to do is tell someone it is for his yard, a 200 pound fertilizer bomb is more than big enough to kill a few dozen people-------------and again you are the one arguing that if he didn't have guns he couldn't kill people

i don't personally own a plane, but i know where some are he didn't have a small plane but if he could steal an assault rifle then why couldn't he steal a small plane

he was using guns he stole from his mother and bought illegally on someone elses license

maybe we could ban drugs? maybe that would stop our drug problem

yes, you have really got me cornered on my hunting rifle argument :rolleyes:
those kids are more dead because they were shot 3-11 times instead of just once :rolleyes: and you know that if he was reloading his hunting rifle those kids would have jumped him and taken him down, so i guess they didn't have a chance because he didn't have to reload that often:rolleyes: that's a great argument!! lets make the bad guys use low capacity magazines so that the kids will have a chance to jump them when they reload

why do you think 6 and 7 year olds would jump him and take him down while he was reloading when in fact all they would have to do is run :rolleyes:?

yes maybe his mother had a plane in the garage...

if you really think you could blow up that school with 3 or 4 bags of fertilizer then i have some ocean front property in North Dakota id like to sell you.

in the end i see that you are right...assault weapons are in no way at all part of the problem in the USA when it comes to the slaughter of defenseless children in a situation like this...

it will be a comforting for people to know that even if there were absolutely no semi automatic weapons at all at his mothers place that all these children were going to die that day anyway,and many many more if he would have used a plane or a fertilizer bomb...at the end of the day we should just be thankful that his mothers guns were so easily accessible.

NateR
12-17-2012, 01:10 AM
do you really think assault rifles are going to protect you from your government ?
one of the most lethal killing machines in the world is run by your government....you and your assault rifles wouldn't stand a chance...but feel free to dream on just the same.

Yeah, that's what everyone told the Revolutionaries in colonial times. They were completely outgunned and outclassed by the British military; but America won its independence just the same.

lol...where do i get my information from ?...the news like most people...other then you though it seems....lol.

Oh, I thought you were actually going to provide a link to a news story, so that we could all read it and share this information. But instead it seems that you're only here to start a fight and insult anyone who disagrees with you.

Maybe you should allow us time to mourn and time to process this tragedy, before getting on here and pushing all of your anti-gun opinions. Your attitude is very disrespectful so I think you need a few days to cool off.

adamt
12-17-2012, 02:25 AM
if you really think you could blow up that school with 3 or 4 bags of fertilizer then i have some ocean front property in North Dakota id like to sell you.



did he kill everyone in the school or just one classroom, he could have accompolished what he did with a couple hundred pounds of fertilizer,

i didn't say he would blow up the whole school, but then again he didn't shoot everyone in the school either did he


gun control is no part of the answer, doing away with public schools is more of a legitimate answer than is gun control, locking away every pyscho is more of a legitimate answer

gun control= effective as drug control

adamt
12-17-2012, 03:27 AM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/397045_10151240999302740_1671883270_n.jpg

NateR
12-17-2012, 06:48 AM
Looks like the President is vowing to do everything within his power to prevent another shooting like this. That's kind of worrisome. For one, it's not his job. This is something that should be handled at the local law enforcement level first, then it should go no higher than the state level. The federal government has no business getting involved and trying to write laws to prevent disturbed people from doing disturbing things.

Did anyone else read or hear any reports stating that the shooter was autistic? I've also heard that the early reports of his mother being a former teacher at the school were false.

adamt
12-17-2012, 01:48 PM
i saw he had aspergers, which i guess is a mild form of autism

but i know people who claiim their child has asperger's and the reality was that all their child had was lack of aswoopins,

i think it would make as much sense to bann all people with aspergers


i also saw that the media had alot of stuff wrong and social media didn't help either, for a long time they were reporting it was his older brother that did it, talk about libel and slander

Neezar
12-17-2012, 02:10 PM
I can't believe how many people are blaming the mom.

rearnakedchoke
12-17-2012, 02:21 PM
very sad indeeed .. imo its too late to ban guns .. there are way too many ... and it makes the gov't a lot of money ... plus, its not the guns .. its the culture ...

Neezar
12-17-2012, 02:21 PM
Here is an article:

http://news.yahoo.com/gunmans-mother-kept-trials-home-life-hidden-010414000.html

A few comments that stood out to me.


California resident Ryan Kraft told KCAL-TV in Los Angeles that when he was a teenager he lived a few doors down from the Lanza family and used to babysit Adam Lanza, then nine or 10 years old. He said the boy "struck me as an introverted kid."

"His mom Nancy had always instructed me to keep an eye on him at all times, never turn my back or even go to the bathroom or anything like that. Which I found odd but I really didn't ask; it wasn't any of my business," said Kraft, who lives in Hermosa Beach. "But looking back at it now, I guess there was something else going on."


? :unsure-1:

You babysat this kid in your home and didn't ask mom to elaborate on this comment?

You dumbass. lol


Lanza also began telling friends that she'd bought guns and had taken up target shooting, John Tambascio said.

All three of the guns that Adam Lanza carried into Sandy Hook Elementary were owned and registered by his mother — a pair of handguns and a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, his primary weapon.

Investigators said Sunday that Nancy Lanza visited shooting ranges several times and that her son also visited an area range.





At Newtown High School, Adam Lanza was often having crises that only his mother could defuse.

"He would have an episode, and she'd have to return or come to the high school and deal with it," said Richard Novia, the school district's head of security until 2008, who got to know the family because both Lanza sons joined the school technology club he chartered.

Novia said Adam Lanza would sometimes withdraw completely "from whatever he was supposed to be doing," whether it was sitting in class or reading a book.

Adam Lanza "could take flight, which I think was the big issue, and it wasn't a rebellious or defiant thing," Novia said. "It was withdrawal."

The club gave the boy a place where he could be more at ease and indulge his interest in computers. His anxieties appeared to ease somewhat, but they never disappeared. When people approached him in the hallways, he would press himself against the wall or walk in a different direction, clutching tight to his black briefcase.


First, if all this is true, I am shocked that she took him to a firing range.

Secondly, I would like to know if she had the guns in a safe and if he had access to it.

And if all of the above is true then I don't see how this comment can even begin to make sense:

Marsha Lanza described Nancy Lanza as a good mother.

"If he had needed consulting, she would have gotten it," Marsha Lanza said. "Nancy wasn't one to deny reality."


Oh he clearly "needed".

Neezar
12-17-2012, 02:23 PM
very sad indeeed .. imo its too late to ban guns .. there are way too many ... and it makes the gov't a lot of money ... plus, its not the guns .. its the culture ...

I have to agree with this.

If you restrict guns with laws then you only restrict the law abiding citizens. Not the bad guys and not the crazies.

We need to do something. But I don't think gun restriction will help at this point.

rearnakedchoke
12-17-2012, 02:54 PM
Yeah, that's what everyone told the Revolutionaries in colonial times. They were completely outgunned and outclassed by the British military; but America won its independence just the same.



Oh, I thought you were actually going to provide a link to a news story, so that we could all read it and share this information. But instead it seems that you're only here to start a fight and insult anyone who disagrees with you.

Maybe you should allow us time to mourn and time to process this tragedy, before getting on here and pushing all of your anti-gun opinions. Your attitude is very disrespectful so I think you need a few days to cool off.

LOL .. you mean the first thing you did was come into this thread and offer condolences? no .. mike started talking about teachers being armed and you piped in about how you agree ... so i find it funny you are talking about mourning when the first thing you did was come in and start talking about your pro-gun views ... i said in another thread, people on here can only agree with nate or they get sent to the corner ... careful people nates on the war path

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

Bonnie
12-17-2012, 06:24 PM
gun control= effective as drug control

I agree. Situations like this one, and the Colorado theater shooting, and the Gabby Giffords' shooting, all these shooters appear to have some mental/psychological/neurological problems that people around them obviously didn't recognize as potentially dangerous to others. I don't know how effective new gun control laws would be against people like these who have no record and who fly under the radar until they do something like this. From news reports, Adam Lanza used his mom's legally registered guns, I believe the Colorado theater shooter bought his weapons legally, and I'm not sure about where the guy in the Giffords shooting got his(?).

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/397045_10151240999302740_1671883270_n.jpg

His expression couldn't be more perfect for that! :laugh:

Bonnie
12-17-2012, 06:37 PM
I can't believe how many people are blaming the mom.

I think it's wrong for us to blame the Mom; we don't know the truth of things, and they are printing and putting out all these stories on the internet...we don't know if they are true or not. I heard it reported that his brother and dad had nothing to do with him for several years now, if that's true, why? Was the dad just leaving it up to the mom to handle and deal with their son and his problems?

They're reporting that she did take him to the shooting range. A friend said it was one way she found of trying to bond with him, he seemed to enjoy it. He wouldn't allow her to touch him or hug him so she was trying to find ways to bond with him. If he did have some form of autism, it might explain some of these things about him. I just listened to several people, some of them doctors, but all of them have autistic children. They explained that autism is a neurological problem, and that children with autism may be affected in different ways within the autism spectrum. Some of them may have little or no empathy or feeling for others. We don't know what this young man's diagnoses was and what kind of support, if any, they were able to get for him throughout his young life that might have helped him with impulses he might have had due to his condition.

People are quick to judge and point fingers when they don't know squat about these people.

adamt
12-17-2012, 07:29 PM
apparently he shot out a window to gain access and the two principals charged him and got shot

even paul blart, mall cop would have been an assett in this scenario, somebody, anybody with security as a goal would have been better than nothing here

what if the principals had each had a can of mace or pepper spray? that would have been something!!! paul blart could have at least been carrying a taser


this is an extreme thought i know, but what if they had a panic button that fogged the whole school with pepper spray?? i think pepper spraying all the kids would have been better than 20 kids dead,

bottom line, any kind of security would have made this situation a little less tragic, cops are wonderful, but even they need at least a little bit of time to get to the scene

Bonnie
12-17-2012, 08:59 PM
apparently he shot out a window to gain access and the two principals charged him and got shot

even paul blart, mall cop would have been an assett in this scenario, somebody, anybody with security as a goal would have been better than nothing here

what if the principals had each had a can of mace or pepper spray? that would have been something!!! paul blart could have at least been carrying a taser


this is an extreme thought i know, but what if they had a panic button that fogged the whole school with pepper spray?? i think pepper spraying all the kids would have been better than 20 kids dead,

bottom line, any kind of security would have made this situation a little less tragic, cops are wonderful, but even they need at least a little bit of time to get to the scene

We are so on the same wavelength....it's scary! :laugh: Seriously though, I was thinking about a panic button that would alert local authorities and maybe automatically lock down the rooms and/or trigger some type of bullet proof wall/door shields that would come down and block anyone entering or shooting into the rooms. And I also thought about the teachers and staff having tasers, but I'm not sure how close you have to be to someone to taser them? And I'm all for having armed security there on site (several, not just one person). I think any/all of these are great ideas that should be considered before ever considering having loaded guns locked in cabinets.

Play The Man
12-17-2012, 09:11 PM
why do you think 6 and 7 year olds would jump him and take him down while he was reloading when in fact all they would have to do is run :rolleyes:?

yes maybe his mother had a plane in the garage...

if you really think you could blow up that school with 3 or 4 bags of fertilizer then i have some ocean front property in North Dakota id like to sell you.

in the end i see that you are right...assault weapons are in no way at all part of the problem in the USA when it comes to the slaughter of defenseless children in a situation like this...

it will be a comforting for people to know that even if there were absolutely no semi automatic weapons at all at his mothers place that all these children were going to die that day anyway,and many many more if he would have used a plane or a fertilizer bomb...at the end of the day we should just be thankful that his mothers guns were so easily accessible.

Brad, you do realize that scenarios similar to what Adam described have already occurred, don't you?

In 2002, a 15-year-old in Tampa, Florida stole a private plane and purposely flew it into a building as an attempt to commit terror similar to 9/11. Thankfully, it wasn't a school. Thankfully, he only killed himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_plane_crash

The worst school massacre wasn't Columbine. It actually occurred 85 years ago and involved explosives at a school. 38 children were killed (not including adults). No children were shot.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Brad, you do know that Adam is a farmer and probably is quite familiar with regulations concerning the use of fertilizer?

rearnakedchoke
12-17-2012, 09:13 PM
We are so on the same wavelength....it's scary! :laugh: Seriously though, I was thinking about a panic button that would alert local authorities and maybe automatically lock down the rooms and/or trigger some type of bullet proof wall/door shields that would come down and block anyone entering or shooting into the rooms. And I also thought about the teachers and staff having tasers, but I'm not sure how close you have to be to someone to taser them? And I'm all for having armed security there on site (several, not just one person). I think any/all of these are great ideas that should be considered before ever considering having loaded guns locked in cabinets.

thats great and all .. but there are thousands of schools ... i am not saying the price is not worth paying .. but it ain't gonna happen .... and teachers trained in using guns and locked guns in cabinets is another unreasonable/far-fetched idea ... its probably best to tackle the issue from the root, which is why are these deranged people getting their hands on guns and going postal ... who knows if there is a solution .... when there is a abvious issue with gun violence in the US ... the US crime rate isn't that bad .. and ranks with most developed nations .. but when is comes to deaths via guns, the US is in the same boat as third world nations ... there is obviously an issue, its just figuring it out ..

Play The Man
12-17-2012, 09:24 PM
its not the guns .. its the culture ...

I agree.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/05/excusing-the-men-who-ran-away/

On the annual commemoration of the “Montreal Massacre,” the Quebec broadcaster Marie-France Bazzo remarked how strange it was that, after all these years, nobody had made a work of art about what happened that day at the École Polytechnique.

I wonder, in the two decades since Dec. 6, 1989, how many novelists, playwrights, film directors have tried, and found themselves stumped at the first question: what is this story about?


To those who succeeded in imposing the official narrative, Marc Lépine embodies the murderous misogynist rage that is inherent in all men, and which all must acknowledge.

For a smaller number of us, the story has quite the opposite meaning: M Lépine was born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater. And, as I always say, no, I’m not suggesting he’s typical of Muslim men or North African men: my point is that he’s not typical of anything, least of all, his pure laine moniker notwithstanding, what we might call (if you’ll forgive the expression) Canadian manhood. As I wrote in this space three years ago:

“The defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lépine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate—an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The ‘men’ stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.”

That’s what my film would be about. But don’t worry, the grant from Cinedole Canada seems to have got lost in the mail.

I would imagine that, when the director Denis Villeneuve and the talented vedette Karine Vanasse set out to make Polytechnique, they were intending to film the official narrative. But, in this case, art cannot imitate life. There is no hero in the official version—other than, as is invariably the case in Trudeaupia, the Canadian state riding in like a belated cavalry to hold annual memorials with flags lowered to half-staff and to demand that every octogenarian farmer register his rusting shotgun. Alas, on celluloid, that doesn’t come over quite as heroic.

So M Villeneuve and his collaborators were obliged to make artistic choices. For starters, Polytechnique is not a film “about” Marc Lépine. Aside from the early voice-over narration of his ugly, banal manifesto, we hear or see very little from his perspective. He is not (if you’ll again forgive the expression) the leading man, and, indeed, barely functions as a supporting role in his own movie: there is no attempt to explore his pathologies or their roots.

M Villeneuve then opts to shoot the movie in black and white, and to be very sparing in his dialogue. I saw the film with a capacity crowd at the Maison du Cinéma in Sherbrooke (lousy sound, by the way), and the dialogue-free stretches are so frequent that, by the time someone eventually delivered a line, I’d all but forgotten the movie was in French. In reality, it’s speaking in a kind of interior language. It’s a black-and-white film of a world of grey—the literal grey of dirty urban snow falling on drab apartment houses and the godawful bunkers of Quebec government architecture, but also a kind of moral grey. The physical landscape of the École Polytechnique is unsparingly rendered: claustrophobic windowless rooms of painted brick blocks that capture the particular grimness of a city full of modern buildings that all look out of date. We hear a couple of period pop hits, but the rest of the score is mournfully anemic violin generalities. It’s an airless world, and M Villeneuve seems determined to keep it that way, as if to let in too many superficial indicators of life—colour, music, banter—would draw attention to how un-animated his characters are. Consciously or not, the director has selected a visual style that’s most sympathetic to what some of us regard as the defining feature of this atrocity: the on-the-scene passivity.

And yet, despite his artfulness, he can’t quite pull it off. He focuses his efforts on two composite students, Valérie (Karine Vanasse) and Jean-François (Sébastien Huberdeau). They’re sitting next to each other at the back of the class when the killer walks in and barks the two most important words in the movie: “Séparez-vous!” This is the hinge moment in the story, the point that determines whether the killer’s scenario will play out as intended, or whether it will be disrupted: drama turns on choices because choice reveals character. But, when the man with the gun issues his instructions, every single male in the room meekly obeys him and troops out, and we are invited to identify with Jean-François because unlike the rest, who shuffle for the exit as if for a fire drill, he alone glances back and makes momentary eye contact with Valérie. Oh, the humanity!

And then, like everyone else, he leaves the room.

“I wanted to absolve the men,” Villeneuve said. “Society condemned them. People were really tough on them. But they were 20 years old . . . It was as if an alien had landed.”

Get 20 issues of Maclean's for $20 and a bonus gift! Click here to purchase.
But it’s always as if an alien had landed. When another Canadian director, James Cameron, filmed Titanic, what most titillated him were the alleged betrayals of convention. It’s supposed to be “women and children first,” but he was obsessed with toffs cutting in line, cowardly men elbowing the womenfolk out of the way and scrambling for the lifeboats, etc. In fact, all the historical evidence is that the evacuation was very orderly. In reality, First Officer William Murdoch threw deck chairs down to passengers drowning in the water to give them something to cling to, and then he went down with the ship—the dull, decent thing, all very British, with no fuss. In Cameron’s movie, Murdoch takes a bribe and murders a third-class passenger. (The director subsequently apologized to the first officer’s hometown in Scotland and offered 5,000 pounds toward a memorial. Gee, thanks.) Pace Cameron, the male passengers gave their lives for the women, and would never have considered doing otherwise. “An alien landed” on the deck of a luxury liner—and men had barely an hour to kiss their wives goodbye, watch them clamber into the lifeboats and sail off without them. The social norm of “women and children first” held up under pressure.

At the École Polytechnique, there was no social norm. And in practical terms it’s easier for a Hollywood opportunist like Cameron to trash the memory of William Murdoch than for a Quebec filmmaker to impose redeeming qualities on a plot where none exist. In Polytechnique, all but one of the “men” walk out of that classroom and out of the story. Only Jean-François acts, after a fashion. He hears the shots . . . and rushes back to save the girl he’s sweet on? No, he does the responsible Canadian thing: he runs down nine miles of windowless corridor to the security man on duty and tells him all hell’s broken loose. So the security guard rushes back to tackle the nut? No, he too does the responsible Canadian thing: he calls the police. More passivity. Polytechnique’s aesthetic is strangely oppressive—not just the “male lead” who can’t lead, but a short film with huge amounts of gunfire yet no adrenalin.

Whenever I write about this issue, I get a lot of emails from guys scoffing, “Oh, right, Steyn. Like you’d be taking a bullet. You’d be pissing your little girlie panties,” etc. Well, maybe I would. But as the Toronto blogger Kathy Shaidle put it:

“When we say ‘we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances,’ we make cowardice the default position.”

I prefer the word passivity—a terrible, corrosive, enervating passivity. Even if I’m wetting my panties, it’s better to have the social norm of the Titanic and fail to live up to it than to have the social norm of the Polytechnique and sink with it. M Villeneuve dedicates his film not just to the 14 women who died that day but also to Sarto Blais, a young man at the Polytechnique who hanged himself eight months later. Consciously or not, the director understands what the heart of this story is: not the choice of one man, deformed and freakish, but the choice of all the others, the nice and normal ones. He shows us the men walking out twice—first, in real time, as it were; later, Rashômon-style, from the point of view of the women, in the final moments of their lives.

If M Villeneuve can’t quite face the implications of what he shows us, we at least have an answer to Mme Bazzo’s question: you can’t make art out of such a world. Whether you can even make life out of it for long will be an interesting question for Quebec, Canada and beyond in the years ahead.

Play The Man
12-17-2012, 09:35 PM
This is the issue: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

Thinking the Unthinkable


In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.

“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”

“You know where we are going,” I replied.

“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork—“Were there any difficulties with....at what age did your child....were there any problems with...has your child ever experienced...does your child have....”

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying—that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map). Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population. (http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/05/us-number-mentally-ill-prisons-quadrupled)

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail, and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011 (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140167676/nations-jails-struggle-with-mentally-ill-prisoners)

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.

Play The Man
12-17-2012, 10:20 PM
Fifty years ago, the mortality rates for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were dismal. They still aren't great, but there has been improvement with a shift to a "first responder" emphasis on CPR and AED use amongst laymen. A non-medical bystander doesn't need to know anything about medicine or surgery; they just have to call 911 and start CPR. It isn't perfect. It doesn't always work, but it was an improvement on the past. The issue is time and distance. If the bystander on the scene can keep the patient alive for 5-10 minutes until an ambulance arrives, there is at least a chance. In these shootings, it takes the police at least 10 minutes or more to respond. Since Columbine, they no longer stay back and contain; they rush in to confront. The schools have to stop or slow down the shooter for at least 10 minutes. Why not at least try to arm a few school personnel in a few schools as a pilot program to test feasibility? Biometric safes keyed to fingerprints would secure the guns to a few trained volunteers. Alternatively, a few trustworthy community volunteers could walk the grounds during the day as armed guards. There are certain careers in this society in which we place a great deal of trust - police, pilots, firemen, career soldiers,etc. Many of these men (mostly men) retire in their 50's or early 60's. They are still in good health and could handle a firearm. In exchange for their service as school security, the legislature could make them exempt from all income and property tax. They would receive tax avoidance rather than a salary. Equipment could be provided by donations.

Play The Man
12-17-2012, 10:53 PM
so you are comparing this to 911 ? and the bombing of the federal building ?...seriously ?...wow...and you think its a good thing this guy killed 20 children with an assault rifle ?

tell me something..why do you feel a need to have access to an assault rifle ?
is that the best thing for hunting ? or you just like the idea of being able to kill a lot of people in a hurry...

you should read the whole thread instead of cherry picking then maybe you would understand i was just replying to a comment that was directed towards me.

do you really think assault rifles are going to protect you from your government ?
one of the most lethal killing machines in the world is run by your government....you and your assault rifles wouldn't stand a chance...but feel free to dream on just the same.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Korean immigrants owned small grocery stores in big cities, including NY and Los Angeles. In many cases, the stores were in black ghettos. The immigrants were not rich. The store was their only asset. Many lived above the store in a small apartment. Some lived in a storeroom in the back. They worked incredibly long hours. Their children would do their homework in the storeroom and help run the store. Instead of appreciation, their hard work was met by envy and racial hatred by the black population. The rapper Ice Cube even wrote a song about them, Black Korea:

Everytime I wanna go get a *uckin' brew
I gotta go down to the store with the two
Oriental one-penny countin' *other*uckers
They make a *igga mad enough to cause a little ruckus

Thinkin' every brother in the world's out to take
So they watch every damn move that I make
They hope I don't pull out a gat and try to rob
They funky little store, but *itch, I got a job

{Look you little Chinese *other*ucker
I ain't tryin' to steal none of yo' *hit, leave me alone}

Yo yo, check it out
So don't follow me, up and down your market
Or your little chop suey *ss will be a target of the nationwide boycott
Juice with the people, that's what the boy got

So pay respect to the black fist
Or we'll burn your store, right down to a crisp
And then we'll see ya
'Cause you can't turn the ghetto, into Black Korea

*sshole, *uck you


Read more: ICE CUBE - BLACK KOREA LYRICS

(Funny how Ice Cube is allowed to make children's movies and nobody ever calls him out on it - some minorities are allowed protection, some not)
When the Rodney King riots broke out, the black mobs started targeting the Korean stores. The Korean store owners pulled out "assault rifles" and stood on the rooves of their stores. This show of force, in many cases, prevented their stores from being torched and their wives and children being burned or beaten to death. Unfortunately, dozens of other people were not so fortunate. I have no doubt, whatsoever, that "assault rifles" saved many lives that day. (defending a store against a riotous mob with a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun would be better than nothing, but not as effective).

In a few months, there is going to be a trial of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. If Zimmerman is acquitted, we will likely see nationwide riots in black ghettos. If, God forbid, President Obama were to be the victim of a crazy assassin, we would likely see nationwide riots in black ghettos. I hope nothing like this happens, but you must agree that it is not science fiction . . . it is in the realm of possibility.

As an aside, fast forward 20 years: the child of the Korean grocer who spent his childhood doing homework in a crowded storeroom is now a doctor. His parents are living in his beautiful home in the suburbs. Their store was closed long years ago. The black bigots got their way. The children of the black bigots are still living in the ghetto. Ice Cube lives in a mansion and gets his produce from Whole Foods. Michelle Obama is complaining about "food deserts" and the lack of grocery stores in the ghetto.:wink:

NateR
12-17-2012, 10:59 PM
Fifty years ago, the mortality rates for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were dismal. They still aren't great, but there has been improvement with a shift to a "first responder" emphasis on CPR and AED use amongst laymen. A non-medical bystander doesn't need to know anything about medicine or surgery; they just have to call 911 and start CPR. It isn't perfect. It doesn't always work, but it was an improvement on the past. The issue is time and distance. If the bystander on the scene can keep the patient alive for 5-10 minutes until an ambulance arrives, there is at least a chance. In these shootings, it takes the police at least 10 minutes or more to respond. Since Columbine, they no longer stay back and contain; they rush in to confront. The schools have to stop or slow down the shooter for at least 10 minutes. Why not at least try to arm a few school personnel in a few schools as a pilot program to test feasibility? Biometric safes keyed to fingerprints would secure the guns to a few trained volunteers. Alternatively, a few trustworthy community volunteers could walk the grounds during the day as armed guards. There are certain careers in this society in which we place a great deal of trust - police, pilots, firemen, career soldiers,etc. Many of these men (mostly men) retire in their 50's or early 60's. They are still in good health and could handle a firearm. In exchange for their service as school security, the legislature could make them exempt from all income and property tax. They would receive tax avoidance rather than a salary. Equipment could be provided by donations.

I totally agree. People can retire from the military as young as 33 years old. There is no reason someone that age can't still handle themselves in a physical confrontation. I've read that a system like this is in place for Israeli public schools, to protect them from attack by Palestinian terrorists. As a result, the instances of school shootings in Israel are almost non-existant.

I believe that these shooters want to see people cowering in fear as they approach. It likely gives them a sense of power and control that they are missing in their life. If they knew that there was any chance at all of meeting an armed resistance, then they would likely choose another target.

Bonnie
12-17-2012, 11:35 PM
thats great and all .. but there are thousands of schools ... i am not saying the price is not worth paying .. but it ain't gonna happen .... and teachers trained in using guns and locked guns in cabinets is another unreasonable/far-fetched idea ... its probably best to tackle the issue from the root, which is why are these deranged people getting their hands on guns and going postal ... who knows if there is a solution .... when there is a abvious issue with gun violence in the US ... the US crime rate isn't that bad .. and ranks with most developed nations .. but when is comes to deaths via guns, the US is in the same boat as third world nations ... there is obviously an issue, its just figuring it out ..

Our kids' lives are worth whatever it costs to improve security. I'm for experienced people who know what they're doing being on site armed and ready to defend and kill. I don't think the idea of keeping loaded weapons in locked cabinets for teachers and staff will fly though. I'm sure there are lots of retired policemen and military people who could do the job.

Bonnie
12-18-2012, 12:09 AM
This is the issue: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

Heartbreaking. :cry: They're all over the gun issue already, but I doubt you'll hear the President or Congress addressing this problem or doing anything to help this poor woman and her son, and all the others like them who desperately need help and support. :sad:



Fifty years ago, the mortality rates for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were dismal. They still aren't great, but there has been improvement with a shift to a "first responder" emphasis on CPR and AED use amongst laymen. A non-medical bystander doesn't need to know anything about medicine or surgery; they just have to call 911 and start CPR. It isn't perfect. It doesn't always work, but it was an improvement on the past. The issue is time and distance. If the bystander on the scene can keep the patient alive for 5-10 minutes until an ambulance arrives, there is at least a chance. In these shootings, it takes the police at least 10 minutes or more to respond. Since Columbine, they no longer stay back and contain; they rush in to confront. The schools have to stop or slow down the shooter for at least 10 minutes. Why not at least try to arm a few school personnel in a few schools as a pilot program to test feasibility? Biometric safes keyed to fingerprints would secure the guns to a few trained volunteers. Alternatively, a few trustworthy community volunteers could walk the grounds during the day as armed guards. There are certain careers in this society in which we place a great deal of trust - police, pilots, firemen, career soldiers,etc. Many of these men (mostly men) retire in their 50's or early 60's. They are still in good health and could handle a firearm. In exchange for their service as school security, the legislature could make them exempt from all income and property tax. They would receive tax avoidance rather than a salary. Equipment could be provided by donations.


Can it be changed or overidden in the case where those people were absent or gone, or, what if they are downed in an attack before they can get to the safe?



I totally agree. People can retire from the military as young as 33 years old. There is no reason someone that age can't still handle themselves in a physical confrontation. I've read that a system like this is in place for Israeli public schools, to protect them from attack by Palestinian terrorists. As a result, the instances of school shootings in Israel are almost non-existant.

I believe that these shooters want to see people cowering in fear as they approach. It likely gives them a sense of power and control that they are missing in their life. If they knew that there was any chance at all of meeting an armed resistance, then they would likely choose another target.

I just heard tonight that the Aurora, CO, shooter had gone to 2 or 3 other theaters before going to that last one because the other theaters allowed conceal and carry in their theaters.

adamt
12-18-2012, 12:10 AM
I don't know why every teacher in the whole country couldn't be armed with some pepper spray, the kind that fogs for bears. who cares if some kids get peppered too if it meant it would stop, deter or slow down an Adam Lansza.

it's good enough for Dog the bounty hunter




In the 1980s and 1990s, Korean immigrants owned small grocery stores in big cities, including NY and Los Angeles. In many cases, the stores were in black ghettos. The immigrants were not rich. The store was their only asset. Many lived above the store in a small apartment. Some lived in a storeroom in the back. They worked incredibly long hours. Their children would do their homework in the storeroom and help run the store. Instead of appreciation, their hard work was met by envy and racial hatred by the black population. The rapper Ice Cube even wrote a song about them, Black Korea:



(Funny how Ice Cube is allowed to make children's movies and nobody ever calls him out on it - some minorities are allowed protection, some not)
When the Rodney King riots broke out, the black mobs started targeting the Korean stores. The Korean store owners pulled out "assault rifles" and stood on the rooves of their stores. This show of force, in many cases, prevented their stores from being torched and their wives and children being burned or beaten to death. Unfortunately, dozens of other people were not so fortunate. I have no doubt, whatsoever, that "assault rifles" saved many lives that day. (defending a store against a riotous mob with a handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun would be better than nothing, but not as effective).

In a few months, there is going to be a trial of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. If Zimmerman is acquitted, we will likely see nationwide riots in black ghettos. If, God forbid, President Obama were to be the victim of a crazy assassin, we would likely see nationwide riots in black ghettos. I hope nothing like this happens, but you must agree that it is not science fiction . . . it is in the realm of possibility.

As an aside, fast forward 20 years: the child of the Korean grocer who spent his childhood doing homework in a crowded storeroom is now a doctor. His parents are living in his beautiful home in the suburbs. Their store was closed long years ago. The black bigots got their way. The children of the black bigots are still living in the ghetto. Ice Cube lives in a mansion and gets his produce from Whole Foods. Michelle Obama is complaining about "food deserts" and the lack of grocery stores in the ghetto.:wink:

+100

NateR
12-18-2012, 12:17 AM
LOL .. you mean the first thing you did was come into this thread and offer condolences? no .. mike started talking about teachers being armed and you piped in about how you agree ... so i find it funny you are talking about mourning when the first thing you did was come in and start talking about your pro-gun views ... i said in another thread, people on here can only agree with nate or they get sent to the corner ... careful people nates on the war path

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

It has nothing to do with that. I just want to ensure that everybody on this site feels that they are able to contribute to the discussion without being insulted and shouted-down by some over-opinionated Canadian who thinks he has all the answers.

I gave BradW the opportunity to provide some sources to back up his claims, but he didn't want to do that. It was clear that all he wanted to do was ridicule anyone who disagreed with him. It's a pattern of behavior from him that I've seen repeated year after year in these kinds of hot topics. So, for the sake of everybody else on the forum, I decided that he needed a few days to cool off before he was allowed to participate again.

Play The Man
12-18-2012, 12:28 AM
Can it be changed or overidden in the case where those people were absent or gone, or, what if they are downed in an attack before they could get to the safe?



I suppose it would depend on the model. I have a biometric fingerprint handgun safe. In an emergency, I can be armed in literally seconds. It is specific to my fingerprint so, God forbid, my kids couldn't open it. It has a lock for a physical metal key as well. My model can accept at least a dozen fingerprints in its memory and it is 5-year-old technology. I'm sure they have biometric fingerprint safes that can remember many, many different fingerprints. Old fingerprints can be deleted. New fingerprints can be added.

Play The Man
12-18-2012, 12:36 AM
It isn't making the national news, but at the Portland mall shooting last week, a man at the mall had a concealed gun and probably limited the number of casualties: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.
"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.
The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.
"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.
"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli. "It just bothers me."

TENNESSEAN
12-18-2012, 01:51 AM
CT already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. I think California has the strictest, we all know there is no gun violence in Cali.

flo
12-18-2012, 02:12 AM
surely we have all seen the other school tragedy yesterday where 22 kids were stabbed in china,

should we ban knives???

Maybe we should anticipate tragedies. For instance, what if someone ran into a school classroom with gasoline and attempted to sling it around and set it on fire? To prevent that scenario from happening, maybe we should ban gasoline.


one last thought..... if guns are banned, shouldn't they be banned from movies and video games too? Tom cruise delayed the opening of jack reacher today, but shouldn't hollywoods glorification of death and evil and murder be permanently delayed? why don't we call for gun censorship before banning guns.... how many people would go for that? I haven't seen it, but correct me if I am wrong, but movies like the hunger games are derived from pure evil
and they are cheered on by society

Right on, Adam.

very sad indeeed .. imo its too late to ban guns .. there are way too many ... and it makes the gov't a lot of money ... plus, its not the guns .. its the culture ...

I totally agree, rnc.

That said, although I don't necessarily agree with Brad, I think it's important to hear everyone's thoughts about this, all input is valuable. I think the discussion was very civil. I hope you let Brad take part, Nate.

We've been largely on a news black-out since Saturday because the media and politicians are so exploiting this tragedy. That's also sick, IMO. One thing I've read that seems balanced and thoughtful was Ben Stein's take on it.

Here's the link (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/17/god-help-us) from The American Spectator, it's short and very worth the time to read.

Neezar
12-18-2012, 02:33 AM
Our kids' lives are worth whatever it costs to improve security. I'm for experienced people who know what they're doing being on site armed and ready to defend and kill. I don't think the idea of keeping loaded weapons in locked cabinets for teachers and staff will fly though. I'm sure there are lots of retired policemen and military people who could do the job.

Every high school in our city and county is staffed full time with an armed police officer. However, that wouldn't have helped in this case because it was an elementary school. We rec'd a recorded message from the school board saying that they were opening us discussions and rethinking school security. I know my kids have had a drill at their school already. They have always had tornado and fire drills. It is sad that they have to have these types of drills now. :sad: But unfortunately, it has become necessary.

I think my 12 year stent at the sheriff's dept may have made me a little paranoid but I have had many different types of drills with my kids. "If this happens, then we do this...."

They are probaly terrorized. :laugh:

Bonnie
12-18-2012, 03:17 AM
Every high school in our city and county is staffed full time with an armed police officer. However, that wouldn't have helped in this case because it was an elementary school. We rec'd a recorded message from the school board saying that they were opening us discussions and rethinking school security. I know my kids have had a drill at their school already. They have always had tornado and fire drills. It is sad that they have to have these types of drills now. :sad: But unfortunately, it has become necessary.

I think my 12 year stent at the sheriff's dept may have made me a little paranoid but I have had many different types of drills with my kids. "If this happens, then we do this...."

They are probaly terrorized. :laugh:

But very well prepared! :laugh: You're a SupaDupa Mom! :wub:

Bonnie
12-18-2012, 04:33 AM
We've been largely on a news black-out since Saturday because the media and politicians are so exploiting this tragedy. That's also sick, IMO. One thing I've read that seems balanced and thoughtful was Ben Stein's take on it.

Here's the link (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/17/god-help-us) from The American Spectator, it's short and very worth the time to read.

The main thing I got from Ben Stein's article was what an evil person Adam Lanza was, "the devil killer". Did you see the article Play posted a couple of pages back, "Thinking the Unthinkable", by the mom of a 13-yr old boy who might be another Adam Lanza if he doesn't get the help he needs? What would Ben Stein tell the mother of this 13-yr. old boy who has these violent outbursts and threatens to kill her, that he's a devil? I'm not defending Adam Lanza's murderous acts at all, but when do we address the mental health issue part of this horrific story? Do we just slap a label of "evil" on it? Is that what we tell the mother of this 13-year old, "Your son is just evil."?

NateR
12-18-2012, 06:17 AM
The main thing I got from Ben Stein's article was what an evil person Adam Lanza was, "the devil killer". Did you see the article Play posted a couple of pages back, "Thinking the Unthinkable", by the mom of a 13-yr old boy who might be another Adam Lanza if he doesn't get the help he needs? What would Ben Stein tell the mother of this 13-yr. old boy who has these violent outbursts and threatens to kill her, that he's a devil? I'm not defending Adam Lanza's murderous acts at all, but when do we address the mental health issue part of this horrific story? Do we just slap a label of "evil" on it? Is that what we tell the mother of this 13-year old, "Your son is just evil."?

I think most parents should recognize the immense capacity for evil that all of their children have, regardless of whether they have been diagnosed with a mental illness or not.

It's just human nature. We're all depraved and corrupted from birth. A parent's job is to help insure that they don't unleash the evil within their children upon the world.

flo
12-18-2012, 06:44 AM
But very well prepared! :laugh: You're a SupaDupa Mom! :wub:

Seconded!

Bonnie
12-18-2012, 06:47 AM
I think most parents should recognize the immense capacity for evil that all of their children have, regardless of whether they have been diagnosed with a mental illness or not.

It's just human nature. We're all depraved and corrupted from birth. A parent's job is to help insure that they don't unleash the evil within their children upon the world.

Is that what you think Adam Lanza's mother did, unleashed the evil within her son upon this town, these people?

The mother who wrote that article about her 13-year old son obviously sees her son needs help, that something is terribly wrong, she's crying out for help.

Can you feel for their plight?

flo
12-18-2012, 06:53 AM
The main thing I got from Ben Stein's article was what an evil person Adam Lanza was, "the devil killer". Did you see the article Play posted a couple of pages back, "Thinking the Unthinkable", by the mom of a 13-yr old boy who might be another Adam Lanza if he doesn't get the help he needs? What would Ben Stein tell the mother of this 13-yr. old boy who has these violent outbursts and threatens to kill her, that he's a devil? I'm not defending Adam Lanza's murderous acts at all, but when do we address the mental health issue part of this horrific story? Do we just slap a label of "evil" on it? Is that what we tell the mother of this 13-year old, "Your son is just evil."?

I guess that's why an open discussion is so valuable. The main thing I got from it is how we can close our eyes to other horrific deeds, that are happening all around us. The media will concentrate on something like this 24/7 to push an agenda (gun control) or simply just overdo the coverage, invading the town and the grieving families and friends, trying to fricking interview them, often playing inappropriate, melodramatic music at the end of their reports. I find the whole thing offensive and unfeeling - it's almost like they have to overdo the emotional side of a tragedy to prove they actually *have* some emotion.

Bonnie
12-18-2012, 07:11 AM
I guess that's why an open discussion is so valuable. The main thing I got from it is how we can close our eyes to other horrific deeds, that are happening all around us. The media will concentrate on something like this 24/7 to push an agenda (gun control) or simply just overdo the coverage, invading the town and the grieving families and friends, trying to fricking interview them, often playing inappropriate, melodramatic music at the end of their reports. I find the whole thing offensive and unfeeling - it's almost like they have to overdo the emotional side of a tragedy to prove they actually *have* some emotion.

Yes, I'm definitely with you on this! The media can come across as so insensitive at times. One FOX show hostess actually asked a little girl, "What did you see?" I couldn't believe she would ask this child that?! But then again, I couldn't believe her mother had her child answering ?s period! And this was the day of the shooting!

And I did take note of what he said about how we have, in our history, chosen to ignore some atrocities and turned a blind eye, which is true.

rearnakedchoke
12-18-2012, 03:14 PM
It has nothing to do with that. I just want to ensure that everybody on this site feels that they are able to contribute to the discussion without being insulted and shouted-down by some over-opinionated Canadian who thinks he has all the answers.

I gave BradW the opportunity to provide some sources to back up his claims, but he didn't want to do that. It was clear that all he wanted to do was ridicule anyone who disagreed with him. It's a pattern of behavior from him that I've seen repeated year after year in these kinds of hot topics. So, for the sake of everybody else on the forum, I decided that he needed a few days to cool off before he was allowed to participate again.

sure man .. whatever floats your boat .. he just didnt see eye to eye with you, so you had to flex your NateR muscle ... i get it ... you dont have any authority in real life, and this makes you feel tough ... so whoever doesn't agree, get rid of them ... he was providing info we all saw on tv, so he didnt want to dig up links ... plenty of people don't offer sources on here ... its never been a strict rule around here ... but when the over-opiniated asshole canadian doesn't abide by the almighty NateR request, he gets the timeout ... LOL ...

MattHughesRocks
12-18-2012, 03:52 PM
You need to go too you disrespectful ass.

sure man .. whatever floats your boat .. he just didnt see eye to eye with you, so you had to flex your NateR muscle ... i get it ... you dont have any authority in real life, and this makes you feel tough ... so whoever doesn't agree, get rid of them ... he was providing info we all saw on tv, so he didnt want to dig up links ... plenty of people don't offer sources on here ... its never been a strict rule around here ... but when the over-opiniated asshole canadian doesn't abide by the almighty NateR request, he gets the timeout ... LOL ...

wavetar
12-18-2012, 07:34 PM
I didn't grow up in a country with the right to bear arms, so I won't pretend to understand pro vs. anti gun stances...they don't exist in my world.

I can say going by the statistical point of view, the genie's been out of the bottle way too long to think gun control can have a significant impact at this point. 300 Million privately owned and registered guns (with how many others unknown?) means they can be easily had by anyone who really wants to have one, regardless of how draconian new gun laws may be.

Because of this, the U.S. is never going to become like say Japan, where strict gun control laws have been in effect since at least the early 1900's I believe, and handgun deaths for the entire country mostly number in the teens to twenties annually.

The best that can be done now is to try & mitigate school shooting tragedies like this from occurring, by smart planning and spending of money towards prevention. Many good ideas can be found in this article:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/17/preventing-school-massacres

Beyond this, it's apparent the society & culture need to have a paradigm shift in how it's own citizens are treated. Real solutions need to be implemented to problems within such as to do with the homeless, the poor, the ill (both mentally & physically), the elderly, veterans, out sourcing of jobs so shareholders make another buck a share, the increasing divide between the top two percentile and the rest of the country, etc, etc. Things are badly broken...this tragedy is just a brief, glaring example.

rearnakedchoke
12-18-2012, 07:40 PM
well said wavetar ... well said!

EHLERZ5
12-18-2012, 07:56 PM
I'm going to share this with you guys, even though I usually stay quiet and out of these things....

My daughter comes home the day after the shooting. And I can boost that she is in the same grade, at the same smalltown Junior High that Matt's son goes to. They had talked about it in homeroom and the majority of class came to the same solution. Media possibly flips the switch in these animals, is something they came up with.

She told me she stood up in class and said -- "If they wouldn't glorify what happens after these shootings on TV, then these freaks wouldn't keep doing it". Then the teacher took the discussion further. It ended up with them talking about how ANY kid that is bullied, picked on, different, left out, etc. can see this on TV and think to himself.... "How can I make them remember or notice me???". And these are 13-year old kids that are drawing a conclusion like this.

I understand media folk have their jobs to do. And you can trace things like this back to all the horrible events like this in the past... But this constant - In your face, In your face, In your face system of media coverage... Is it the weapon that builds the rage inside, I'll use my daughters term "freaks"? I have another name for them, it might start with the same letter, but I'll keep from getting an infraction by not typing it :wink:.

Curious as to what you think about it?

flo
12-18-2012, 09:09 PM
I'm going to share this with you guys, even though I usually stay quiet and out of these things....

My daughter comes home the day after the shooting. And I can boost that she is in the same grade, at the same smalltown Junior High that Matt's son goes to. They had talked about it in homeroom and the majority of class came to the same solution. Media possibly flips the switch in these animals, is something they came up with.

She told me she stood up in class and said -- "If they wouldn't glorify what happens after these shootings on TV, then these freaks wouldn't keep doing it". Then the teacher took the discussion further. It ended up with them talking about how ANY kid that is bullied, picked on, different, left out, etc. can see this on TV and think to himself.... "How can I make them remember or notice me???". And these are 13-year old kids that are drawing a conclusion like this.

I understand media folk have their jobs to do. And you can trace things like this back to all the horrible events like this in the past... But this constant - In your face, In your face, In your face system of media coverage... Is it the weapon that builds the rage inside, I'll use my daughters term "freaks"? I have another name for them, it might start with the same letter, but I'll keep from getting an infraction by not typing it :wink:.

Curious as to what you think about it?

Right on the money, friend. Your daughter is intuitive for her age.

rearnakedchoke
12-18-2012, 09:20 PM
ehler, your daughter is absolutely right ... we know the lanzsa's klebolds, dahmers, koresh's ... but none of the victims .. sadly, violence sells ... and weak minded people see this and think they can go out with all the attention these people get ... its a cycle ... but as flo pointed out ... you got a smart one there ... awesome!

flo
12-18-2012, 09:36 PM
The best that can be done now is to try & mitigate school shooting tragedies like this from occurring, by smart planning and spending of money towards prevention. Many good ideas can be found in this article:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/17/preventing-school-massacres

Beyond this, it's apparent the society & culture need to have a paradigm shift in how it's own citizens are treated. Real solutions need to be implemented to problems within such as to do with the homeless, the poor, the ill (both mentally & physically), the elderly, veterans, out sourcing of jobs so shareholders make another buck a share, the increasing divide between the top two percentile and the rest of the country, etc, etc. Things are badly broken...this tragedy is just a brief, glaring example.

Good article and I agree with the former paragraph. You know I respect your opinion, wav, but to the latter - I disagree that it's because of economic inequality. I think it's a cultural problem, none of the shooters were poor, elderly, etc., although yes, they were definitely mentally ill and I agree with you there that our society may need to look for better solutions to help the mentally ill, or at least prevent them from harming others (like the man who was pushed in front of the subway train last week by a mentally disturbed man).

I'm a capitalist and don't think that income redistribution is the answer to anything. The "top two" in earning percentile are already supporting the rest of the population with entitlements, etc. Sadly, the ethic here has changed from "what can I do for my country (city, neighborhood, family)" to "what can they do for me?".

Tyburn
12-18-2012, 11:20 PM
Tragic occurance :sad:

I think people need to separate in their minds two things...the most important thing here is that there is a difference between the right to own a firearm....and the right to own a sub machine gun...in all these events, it doesnt appear that its normal guns or hunting guns...its military grade weapons that allways appear to be used.

Now...where do you draw the line on what constitutes the basis of allowance for arms?

You know...pea shooters...rifles...sub machine guns....grenade launchers....tanks....missile silo...? there is a BIG difference...I do think that its not the ammount of guns out there which is your problem...its the type.

You might claim you need the right for protection and deffence...well you can do that with a peashooter you dont NEED a military weapon...so why bother having one...thats what I would challenge...just like I dont think you should build your own missile silo...well...frankly...noone should be running around with submachine guns...you just dont need to do that....if you WANT to do that, you have to ask yourself why...coz I do wonder if with some people its almost a status symbol...

Would the guy have been able to do the same damage as quickly, or to the extent, if he only had a revolver?

When your messing around with "clips" I'm sorry, its gone WAY TO FAR..."Clips" arent for Hunting, and they arent for defence...they are purely for attack...having them coz they are fun, because they are symbols of masculinity as I believe they may be advertized in your country...THATS part of the problem.

I dont think you have an issue with regulation, Thats seems fine, as does the hunting restrictions...what is an issue is that you can access weapons that have no real function other then military use.

I would say, keep hand guns and rifles...and ban everything more powerful then that...but I doubt any changes will happen like that...its too late...people already own them :laugh:

Tyburn
12-18-2012, 11:21 PM
the second thing...is that the right to bear arms isnt an original in the constitution anyway...its an ammendment...cant help but ask...if a document is perfect in its original form why ever change it? and if you can change it once...well...where do you stop changing it???

adamt
12-19-2012, 02:22 AM
google 'bath massacre'

1927 school 37 dead no guns

rearnakedchoke
12-19-2012, 03:02 AM
google 'bath massacre'

1927 school 37 dead no guns

I don't know if u are serious or joking when providing an event that happened almost a century ago .... No one is saying knives, or planes or explosives can't kill people ... They are just saying guns are much more efficient ... And semi-automatic and assault weapons are even more efficient than regular guns ... And if these guns are readily available ... By legal or illegal means ... Things like this are going to happen ...

adamt
12-19-2012, 03:16 AM
I don't know if u are serious or joking when providing an event that happened almost a century ago .... No one is saying knives, or planes or explosives can't kill people ... They are just saying guns are much more efficient ... And semi-automatic and assault weapons are even more efficient than regular guns ... And if these guns are readily available ... By legal or illegal means ... Things like this are going to happen ...

seriously?!!?!? guns are more efficient than a plane or bomb? I'm pretty sure that when one bang from a bomb kills dozen of people compared to one bang from a gun killing one person(or in this instance it took 3-11 bangs) then technically a bomb is about a hundred times more efficient



Umm.... things like this are going to happen if guns are available?!?!?!? I think the facts are that things are going to happen like even if guns aren't available. In fact guns stop things like this from happening, but you don't here about the massacres that are stopped!


in 2004 the assault ban expired, partly because the fbi and cia said it was unneccessary, and since then gun sales have skyrocketed, and crime rates have plummetted---- those are stats, whether it feels like it or not, that is reality

Neezar
12-19-2012, 04:53 AM
You might claim you need the right for protection and deffence...well you can do that with a peashooter you dont NEED a military weapon...so why bother having one...thats what I would challenge...

.what is an issue is that you can access weapons that have no real function other then military use.





A few months ago I heard a 20+ year military man making a comment. It was in the middle of a conversation about US in regards to world relations, etc. But this comment stuck out for me. He said something to the effect of :

You know why we don't have other military forces invading the US? It's not because our military is so powerful or so many. It's because they know that the US citizens are armed and they will have to face them, too.

I say the US would be committing suicide by banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms.



. 300 Million privately owned and registered guns (with how many others unknown?) means they can be easily had by anyone who really wants to have one, regardless of how draconian new gun laws may be.

Because of this, the U.S. .....


^Glad that info is out there.

wavetar
12-19-2012, 01:32 PM
Good article and I agree with the former paragraph. You know I respect your opinion, wav, but to the latter - I disagree that it's because of economic inequality. I think it's a cultural problem, none of the shooters were poor, elderly, etc., although yes, they were definitely mentally ill and I agree with you there that our society may need to look for better solutions to help the mentally ill, or at least prevent them from harming others (like the man who was pushed in front of the subway train last week by a mentally disturbed man).

I'm a capitalist and don't think that income redistribution is the answer to anything. The "top two" in earning percentile are already supporting the rest of the population with entitlements, etc. Sadly, the ethic here has changed from "what can I do for my country (city, neighborhood, family)" to "what can they do for me?".

Understood Flo, and to be clear, I wasn't saying economic inequality was the sole cause of this, or any other mass shooting. My point was it's high time we (and I include Canada in this, we're kinda joined at the hip) took a serious look at the many internal issues which are leading to a breakdown in our societies. We concern ourselves with the rest of the world, yet our own houses are not in order, in fact, they are collapsing.

I agree the ethics are changing as you say, but the leaders of business and government have contributed mightily. Businesses by taking millions of jobs out of the nation's economy by out sourcing, and government by allowing this to happen. You can only take away so much before the strain begins to show, and attitudes begin to change for the worse.

There's a million books on socioeconomic issues, so I won't belabor the point here. I'm just saying big changes are needed. However, it has to begin with an acknowledgement that there is indeed a serious problem, and that it's a fundamental issue with our society. Without that, we remain divisive, ineffective, and powerless to make changes.

TENNESSEAN
12-19-2012, 01:41 PM
Dave, no disrespect but you know absolutely nothing about guns. No sub machine guns where used. They are illegal you can own them with a license but its very hard to do.

County Mike
12-19-2012, 02:52 PM
To everyone screaming for tougher gun laws. A little history lesson:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
Mexico established gun control in 1976. Crime is among the most urgent concerns facing Mexico. Mexican drug trafficking rings play a major role in the flow of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana transiting between Latin America and the United States. Drug trafficking and organized crime have also been a major source of violent crime in Mexico.

Mexico has experienced increasingly high crime rates, especially in major urban centers. Crime continues at high levels, and is repeatedly marked by violence, especially in Mexico City, Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, Nuevo Laredo, Michoacan, and the state of Sinaloa. The high incidence of crime in Mexico has also poured across the border and influenced crime in the United States, including drugs, illegal immigration, and gangs.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
------------------------------
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no brainer! Don't let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all abiding citizens an easy target.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please make this go viral.
peace

rearnakedchoke
12-19-2012, 05:18 PM
i don't think the intent is to go around and take away peoples guns ... but i can understand the fear around gun control being that potential first step in doing so ... i grew up in a house where guns were around for hunting ... we can get guns here, so its not like they are illegal ... you can't carry them around loaded or anything .. but there is no real need for that imo ...

rearnakedchoke
12-19-2012, 05:22 PM
seriously?!!?!? guns are more efficient than a plane or bomb? I'm pretty sure that when one bang from a bomb kills dozen of people compared to one bang from a gun killing one person(or in this instance it took 3-11 bangs) then technically a bomb is about a hundred times more efficient



Umm.... things like this are going to happen if guns are available?!?!?!? I think the facts are that things are going to happen like even if guns aren't available. In fact guns stop things like this from happening, but you don't here about the massacres that are stopped!


in 2004 the assault ban expired, partly because the fbi and cia said it was unneccessary, and since then gun sales have skyrocketed, and crime rates have plummetted---- those are stats, whether it feels like it or not, that is reality

when i say more efficient .. in the grand scheme of getting guns and ammo then making a bomb or hijscking a plane .. i don't know how many people die per year from planned bombings or hijacked planes used as weapons in the US ... but i am sure it is less than gun deaths ...

adamt
12-19-2012, 07:41 PM
To everyone screaming for tougher gun laws. A little history lesson:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
Mexico established gun control in 1976. Crime is among the most urgent concerns facing Mexico. Mexican drug trafficking rings play a major role in the flow of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana transiting between Latin America and the United States. Drug trafficking and organized crime have also been a major source of violent crime in Mexico.

Mexico has experienced increasingly high crime rates, especially in major urban centers. Crime continues at high levels, and is repeatedly marked by violence, especially in Mexico City, Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, Nuevo Laredo, Michoacan, and the state of Sinaloa. The high incidence of crime in Mexico has also poured across the border and influenced crime in the United States, including drugs, illegal immigration, and gangs.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
------------------------------
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world! It's a no brainer! Don't let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all abiding citizens an easy target.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please make this go viral.
peace


very true, especially that you won't see it on the evening news, they obviously have an agenda here


when i say more efficient .. in the grand scheme of getting guns and ammo then making a bomb or hijscking a plane .. i don't know how many people die per year from planned bombings or hijacked planes used as weapons in the US ... but i am sure it is less than gun deaths ...

well if that is your basis for argument, then we don't even need to talk about homicide at all, let alone guns, because homicide isn't even in the top 15 causes of death anymore. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
So if that is the standard of "efficiency" then alcohol, obesity, automobiles and suicide are much more efficient at killing people. We really would need to look at banning alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, and most definitely abortion.

Tyburn
12-19-2012, 08:11 PM
A few months ago I heard a 20+ year military man making a comment. It was in the middle of a conversation about US in regards to world relations, etc. But this comment stuck out for me. He said something to the effect of :

You know why we don't have other military forces invading the US? It's not because our military is so powerful or so many. It's because they know that the US citizens are armed and they will have to face them, too.

I say the US would be committing suicide by banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms.




^Glad that info is out there.

:laugh: The reason you never get invaded has nothing to do with your weapons. Its pure Geography....But you can be...and have been collonized. Your Whole way of being exists because various European Empires set up collonies on your soil. You may not think that that constitutes an invasion...and a full scale invasion you would be right, mainly, again due to the vastness...you are NOT one Country, but Fifty...in terms of countries...I think the French managed to invade the most of Continental America...But I can assure you also that when the British and others docked off your coasts, the land was FAR from empty. Now WTF do you suppose happened to the people who lived in those lands before your decendants conqurered. I very much doubt the vast majority of you are anything but the product of large scale immergration...Essentially your not "American" ethnically speaking at all. You are the living remains of the conquest that you guys never seem to speak about. The joke of making such a silly statement about invasion is on you...invasion is the reason you exist on that side of the world and not this! (at least for the vast majorty of people)

Modern day...Noone can attack the US coz the technology wont stretch that far without refueling...why do you think your so dependant on the West to be able to fight your wars? the same is true for you....thats why there are US bases all around Europe...its a half way point, because remove those bases and you'd be a seagoing force only...your aircraft would have to be launched, and would have to make stops on ships in order to even reach your enemies, let alone fight them.

Only Canada and mexico could invade you...you got out of Mexico by using the Republic of Texas as a shield during its collonialism period...and Canada...well you pre-empted any invasion attempt by trying to invade her right after the war of independance...unfortunately for you (in this case) there is several inland oceans between your nation and hers...and you werent very successful in your attempt...another thing you never hear Americans speak about...FAR from wanting simply to be free of British Rule...you then ACTIVELY marched on a nearby nation and tried to oppress its people. What a cheek considering how much you go on about rights and freedoms...perhaps those could be extended to the canadians also?

Tyburn
12-19-2012, 08:16 PM
Dave, no disrespect but you know absolutely nothing about guns. No sub machine guns where used. They are illegal you can own them with a license but its very hard to do.

I saw the photograph...it looks like a machine gun to me :ninja: maybe its not technically...but since they already ban those apparently, perhaps they would ban the ones that look like them

I'm not suggesting giving up guns...simply, giving up those which look, or act like machine guns or military grade weapons. That has nothing to do with your right to bear arms...its to do with letting people of use of the firearms they need for protection and hunting...NOT for warfare just to make themselves feel powerful or leave them lying around where nut jobs can use them

You say the problem is with the Humans, not the guns...yeah well if the Humans are going to behave like children, and cant be trusted, then you take away the guns...its easier to sort the problem that way, rather then trying to fix the humans. :laugh:

Tyburn
12-19-2012, 08:25 PM
You know what...if they really wanted to follow the constitution, then lets put it into context and say the ONLY firearms that an American should have are the firearms that were available in the 1700s. Because I dont think their forefathers imagined that they would start claiming that having to have large, quick fire, military grade weapons, were even included in an Amendment.

I'd be okay with that.

The Right to bear arms, therefore does not extend beyond what your forefathers knew as firearms. Anyone who thinks differently is using the consitution out of its historical context...they are extending the brackets to include things that cant have been sanctioned because they hadnt been invented yet!

Its ironic that this document is twisted as much by the conservatives for their love of guns, as it is by the liberals for their love of transitory fads.

flo
12-19-2012, 09:16 PM
Understood Flo, and to be clear, I wasn't saying economic inequality was the sole cause of this, or any other mass shooting. My point was it's high time we (and I include Canada in this, we're kinda joined at the hip) took a serious look at the many internal issues which are leading to a breakdown in our societies. We concern ourselves with the rest of the world, yet our own houses are not in order, in fact, they are collapsing.

I agree the ethics are changing as you say, but the leaders of business and government have contributed mightily. Businesses by taking millions of jobs out of the nation's economy by out sourcing, and government by allowing this to happen. You can only take away so much before the strain begins to show, and attitudes begin to change for the worse.

There's a million books on socioeconomic issues, so I won't belabor the point here. I'm just saying big changes are needed. However, it has to begin with an acknowledgement that there is indeed a serious problem, and that it's a fundamental issue with our society. Without that, we remain divisive, ineffective, and powerless to make changes.

Yes, I see what you're saying. Good points, Todd.

flo
12-19-2012, 09:29 PM
You know what...if they really wanted to follow the constitution, then lets put it into context and say the ONLY firearms that an American should have are the firearms that were available in the 1700s. Because I dont think their forefathers imagined that they would start claiming that having to have large, quick fire, military grade weapons, were even included in an Amendment.

I'd be okay with that.

The Right to bear arms, therefore does not extend beyond what your forefathers knew as firearms. Anyone who thinks differently is using the consitution out of its historical context...they are extending the brackets to include things that cant have been sanctioned because they hadnt been invented yet!

Its ironic that this document is twisted as much by the conservatives for their love of guns, as it is by the liberals for their love of transitory fads.

Sorry, Dave, but you are totally wrong here. The second amendment only affirms our God-given right. The forefathers knew we had to be armed to resist a tyrannical government, like King George's. The intent of the Second Amendment is to be certain that the people were armed at the same level as the government, purely to make sure that attempted tyranny would be a bloody and dangerous business.

Careful with your statements about our supposed "love" of guns and our beloved Constitution. Just saying.

rev
12-19-2012, 09:41 PM
You know what...if they really wanted to follow the constitution, then lets put it into context and say the ONLY firearms that an American should have are the firearms that were available in the 1700s. Because I dont think their forefathers imagined that they would start claiming that having to have large, quick fire, military grade weapons, were even included in an Amendment.

I'd be okay with that.

The Right to bear arms, therefore does not extend beyond what your forefathers knew as firearms. Anyone who thinks differently is using the consitution out of its historical context...they are extending the brackets to include things that cant have been sanctioned because they hadnt been invented yet!

Its ironic that this document is twisted as much by the conservatives for their love of guns, as it is by the liberals for their love of transitory fads.

Are you kidding me?! Dave you are way smarter than that. The right to bear arms was for the purpose of defense. More specifically, it was to keep the local Militias armed. That being the case, based on what you are saying, we should only be allowed to defend ourselves with muskets?!
BTW. Over here in the USA, some of us love to shoot guns. Like, for fun. To some, its a sport. You can call it, trying to be more manly if you want, I dont care. We work, earn money, pay bills, then if we can afford it afterward, we purchase a gun or ammo and shoot. (and i promise you that none of us give a crap if anyone thinks we do it to be more of a man)
I have been quiet on this issue but man, come on.
AND! The comment before about banning guns that look like machine guns is nuts. So because a gun is black and has a larger magazine(that's a "clip":rolleyes:), it should be banned? Well, then i guess we cant have black handled kitchen knives because they look like small swords and heaven knows that swords have been used to kill a whole bunch of people. Guess even machetes are out of the question as well. Sorry fellas, we are going to have to gnaw our ways throught the brush instead of using a machete because it looks like a sword. I can keep going based on this ignorant way of thinking!
We should ban black or brown trucks because they look like military vehicles.
A hunting shotgun with buck shot could have killed more people in less time than that kid with the AR15 did in CT.
The fact is, PEOPLE commit crimes. Not guns.
According to the FBI, the #1 wepon of choice in violent crimes is a baseball bat. Why arent people trying to restrict baseball bat ownership? Could it be because they are used also for sport? hmmmm. Imagine that. If you really want to split hairs, look at the baseball bat. Looks like a club. What was the original use for a club?....... you see where Im going with this?

The limits need to be reasonable, yes. No need for a citizen to have a full auto weapon or grenades. I agree. I know some lame arguments will be thrown my way on this and when I get back on I will shoot them down or reason with them, but they better be stronger than, "well they look bad".

No disrepect brother. I love you man. I hope I havn't made a bunch of folks mad but, come on.

rev
12-19-2012, 09:47 PM
Understood Flo, and to be clear, I wasn't saying economic inequality was the sole cause of this, or any other mass shooting. My point was it's high time we (and I include Canada in this, we're kinda joined at the hip) took a serious look at the many internal issues which are leading to a breakdown in our societies. We concern ourselves with the rest of the world, yet our own houses are not in order, in fact, they are collapsing.

I agree the ethics are changing as you say, but the leaders of business and government have contributed mightily. Businesses by taking millions of jobs out of the nation's economy by out sourcing, and government by allowing this to happen. You can only take away so much before the strain begins to show, and attitudes begin to change for the worse.

There's a million books on socioeconomic issues, so I won't belabor the point here. I'm just saying big changes are needed. However, it has to begin with an acknowledgement that there is indeed a serious problem, and that it's a fundamental issue with our society. Without that, we remain divisive, ineffective, and powerless to make changes.

Well said!!!

Neezar
12-19-2012, 09:58 PM
The joke of making such a silly statement about invasion is on you...invasion is the reason you exist on that side of the world and not this! (at least for the vast majorty of people)




:laugh::laugh::laugh:

rev
12-19-2012, 10:10 PM
Sorry, Dave, but you are totally wrong here. The second amendment only affirms our God-given right. The forefathers knew we had to be armed to resist a tyrannical government, like King George's. The intent of the Second Amendment is to be certain that the people were armed at the same level as the government, purely to make sure that attempted tyranny would be a bloody and dangerous business.

Careful with your statements about our supposed "love" of guns and our beloved Constitution. Just saying.

Thank you flo!!!!!!

Play The Man
12-19-2012, 11:01 PM
:laugh: The reason you never get invaded has nothing to do with your weapons. Its pure Geography....But you can be...and have been collonized. Your Whole way of being exists because various European Empires set up collonies on your soil. You may not think that that constitutes an invasion...and a full scale invasion you would be right, mainly, again due to the vastness...you are NOT one Country, but Fifty...in terms of countries...I think the French managed to invade the most of Continental America...But I can assure you also that when the British and others docked off your coasts, the land was FAR from empty. Now WTF do you suppose happened to the people who lived in those lands before your decendants conqurered. I very much doubt the vast majority of you are anything but the product of large scale immergration...Essentially your not "American" ethnically speaking at all. You are the living remains of the conquest that you guys never seem to speak about. The joke of making such a silly statement about invasion is on you...invasion is the reason you exist on that side of the world and not this! (at least for the vast majorty of people)

Modern day...Noone can attack the US coz the technology wont stretch that far without refueling...why do you think your so dependant on the West to be able to fight your wars? the same is true for you....thats why there are US bases all around Europe...its a half way point, because remove those bases and you'd be a seagoing force only...your aircraft would have to be launched, and would have to make stops on ships in order to even reach your enemies, let alone fight them.

Only Canada and mexico could invade you...you got out of Mexico by using the Republic of Texas as a shield during its collonialism period...and Canada...well you pre-empted any invasion attempt by trying to invade her right after the war of independance...unfortunately for you (in this case) there is several inland oceans between your nation and hers...and you werent very successful in your attempt...another thing you never hear Americans speak about...FAR from wanting simply to be free of British Rule...you then ACTIVELY marched on a nearby nation and tried to oppress its people. What a cheek considering how much you go on about rights and freedoms...perhaps those could be extended to the canadians also?

http://whichgun.com/img/blog-posts/would-you-send-a-gun-to-the-uk-to-help-defend-a-british-home/poster.jpg

Tyburn, I really find it ironic that you and other Brits lecture us about gun ownership given what happened within the lifetime of people that are still alive. Please read up on WW2. Pictured above is a poster from The American Committee For Defense of British Homes. They collected donations from private American citizens to help arm England to defend against a Nazi invasion of the British Isles. According to the last weekly report released by the committee on Dec. 6, 1941 (the day before the bombing of Pearl Harbor) private American citizens had donated and shipped 5,133 shotguns and rifles, 6,337 revolvers, 110 Thompson submachine guns and 642,291 rounds of ammunition. The committee was also able to procure from U.S. government surplus and ship to Britain a total of 13, 763 revolvers, 30,000 magazines and 1.4 million rounds of ammunition. Part of the reason you are not speaking German is because American "gun nuts" helped arm you and save your bacon. When your Muslims start their takeover, please don't expect us to arm you again. I have a feeling the help won't be there this time.

Play The Man
12-19-2012, 11:04 PM
google 'bath massacre'

1927 school 37 dead no guns

Please see post #56 :laugh:

adamt
12-19-2012, 11:13 PM
i'm sorry for repeating you ptm, i knew i picked that up from somewhere :unsure-1:

i thought i came across it on facebook :blink:

i get tired of researching for stuff like that PTM, from now on I am going to just ask you and let you tell me stuff from memory :)

btw, thought of you the other day when I was reading about polycarp, when i was doing research on Smyrna

hughesfan4life
12-20-2012, 12:21 AM
thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of the wee ones and their brave teachers who lost their lives trying to protect those wee inocents.:cry:.xx

flo
12-20-2012, 03:02 AM
http://whichgun.com/img/blog-posts/would-you-send-a-gun-to-the-uk-to-help-defend-a-british-home/poster.jpg

Tyburn, I really find it ironic that you and other Brits lecture us about gun ownership given what happened within the lifetime of people that are still alive. Please read up on WW2. Pictured above is a poster from The American Committee For Defense of British Homes. They collected donations from private American citizens to help arm England to defend against a Nazi invasion of the British Isles. According to the last weekly report released by the committee on Dec. 6, 1941 (the day before the bombing of Pearl Harbor) private American citizens had donated and shipped 5,133 shotguns and rifles, 6,337 revolvers, 110 Thompson submachine guns and 642,291 rounds of ammunition. The committee was also able to procure from U.S. government surplus and ship to Britain a total of 13, 763 revolvers, 30,000 magazines and 1.4 million rounds of ammunition. Part of the reason you are not speaking German is because American "gun nuts" helped arm you and save your bacon. When your Muslims start their takeover, please don't expect us to arm you again. I have a feeling the help won't be there this time.

Amen, my friend!

thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of the wee ones and their brave teachers who lost their lives trying to protect those wee inocents.:cry:.xx

Thank you for those sentiments, Claire.

Tyburn
12-20-2012, 08:02 PM
Sorry, Dave, but you are totally wrong here. The second amendment only affirms our God-given right. The forefathers knew we had to be armed to resist a tyrannical government, like King George's. The intent of the Second Amendment is to be certain that the people were armed at the same level as the government, purely to make sure that attempted tyranny would be a bloody and dangerous business.

Careful with your statements about our supposed "love" of guns and our beloved Constitution. Just saying.

:scared0011: Well in that case...I suppose consitutionally...you should be able to have machine guns after all....I always thought it was for protection...but not to be equal to the Government in turms of arms....that I didnt know. :blink:

thing is I already think your Government...by Consitutional levels is Tyranical...not because its oppressing its people...but because its acting well beyond its design brief...I mean...how can a Federal Government go from only being able to make laws concerning imports/exports and Transport...to making ANY laws about Education or Health whatsoever?

I know it had to act beyond its design brief during the Civil War...but its like your Government (as in Federal) is still acting on the same level as it did during the Civil War...thats not inkeeping with the general peace time principles where State Governments are supposed to be incharge...and the Federation nothing more then a collection of State Government representatives.

That happened without any "bloody and dangerous business"

What are your thoughts on the actual physical Federal Government? is its very permanent being (rather then convention style congressionals) actually completely in contradiction of the consitutional basis for its existance? You seem to know a lot about it...I just want to be sure that what I have in my mind...is correct in that situation.

Tyburn
12-20-2012, 08:29 PM
1) Are you kidding me?! Dave you are way smarter than that. The right to bear arms was for the purpose of defense. More specifically, it was to keep the local Militias armed. That being the case, based on what you are saying, we should only be allowed to defend ourselves with muskets?!

2) BTW. Over here in the USA, some of us love to shoot guns. Like, for fun. To some, its a sport. You can call it, trying to be more manly if you want, I dont care. We work, earn money, pay bills, then if we can afford it afterward, we purchase a gun or ammo and shoot. (and i promise you that none of us give a crap if anyone thinks we do it to be more of a man)
I have been quiet on this issue but man, come on.

3)AND! The comment before about banning guns that look like machine guns is nuts. So because a gun is black and has a larger magazine(that's a "clip":rolleyes:), it should be banned?

4) Well, then i guess we cant have black handled kitchen knives because they look like small swords and heaven knows that swords have been used to kill a whole bunch of people. Guess even machetes are out of the question as well. Sorry fellas, we are going to have to gnaw our ways throught the brush instead of using a machete because it looks like a sword. I can keep going based on this ignorant way of thinking!

5) A hunting shotgun with buck shot could have killed more people in less time than that kid with the AR15 did in CT.
The fact is, PEOPLE commit crimes. Not guns.

6) According to the FBI, the #1 wepon of choice in violent crimes is a baseball bat. Why arent people trying to restrict baseball bat ownership? Could it be because they are used also for sport? hmmmm. Imagine that. If you really want to split hairs, look at the baseball bat. Looks like a club. What was the original use for a club?....... you see where Im going with this?

7) The limits need to be reasonable, yes. No need for a citizen to have a full auto weapon or grenades. I agree. I know some lame arguments will be thrown my way on this and when I get back on I will shoot them down or reason with them, but they better be stronger than, "well they look bad".

No disrepect brother. I love you man. I hope I havn't made a bunch of folks mad but, come on.

1) What I was saying is YES...if the ideal was a right to bear arms, but not expressed that that limit should rise in responce to a Governments military, which I didnt know until Flo told me...then YES the right to bear arms would be the right to bear whatever arms only existed at the time of its writing.

2) thats not culturally compatable with modern day British culture. Remember, we dont really do cultural confidence...let alone having "fun" with what we ONLY associate with weapons of war. You have to understand that we dont hunt anymore, and we are not allowed weapons like that...except with the strictest of regulations. So we do NOT see that one could have "fun" with such things. We merely see them as weapons for war...their reason for being is to kill people, thats what they were made for. They are tools of war. Naturally therefore we would not be comfortable with using them in a blase manner, nor linking them with masculinity as if there was nothing unusual about them...most Brittons will NEVER SEE A GUN OF ANY TYPE do you understand that. If you do, then my position is a logical follow on of a culture that simply doesnt have that...Imagine what the Native Americans might have felt like when the first settlers arrived with firearms....they had never see hand guns before....well largely alot of English people are probably about as clueless...except they are aware of their existance. :ashamed:

3) to me there are only three different types of guns...Revolvers with the bit in the middle that spins round. Pistols, which dont have the bit that spins round, people tell me they can be automatic or semi-automatic...which someone said means that the more automatic they are the faster they shoot and sometimes you dont need to pull a trigger multiple times just keep it pressed down and it fires more then one. The third type is rifles...these have really long spouts and sometimes they have more then one hole. Anything with a big bit that drops out the bottom...thats a machine gun to me....People talk about gauges which I think is the size of the hole, and calibre which I think is the size of the bullets...beyond that I know absolutely nothing about guns...and neither should you expect me to...people in my culture that show an unhealthy knowledge are the sort of people who might do what happened in the school. In Harrogate...we actually do get to see some guns...because of Menwith Hill...there Ministry of Defense Police are one of only three types to be in possession of firearms. Being that we are the closest large store to the base (besides whatever they presumably have on the base itself) its not suprising we get strays in...though I personally dont think they should be armed when not at the base...for obvious reasons, noone wants to be the law abiding citizen to clarify that point to them :laugh:

4) We are not permitted to carry knives either. though some people do. obviously we can own them because they have a function other then to kill people, that is to chop stuff up...but there is no need for people to have anything beyond a kitchen knife...I actually do collect knives...but I dont use them for anything. I like them because they look pretty...I only have about three, coz they cost an absolute bomb, but you can get replicas of all sorts of types.

5) I dont know what you mean.

6) I made that point about ceremonial mace before, but noone listened :unsure-1:

7) but it did look bad :mellow: Thats all I can say...I dont know nowt about guns, neither should I, im living in England, we dont have them here. I've already told you anything that I dont recognise as a revolver, pistol, or rifle...looks like a machine gun to me :ashamed: I'm sorry that I dont know any more then that really. I saw the photograph on the news...and I would say it was a machine gun...it was big and didnt fit anything else on my taxonomy, so I got it wrong, if you say its something else, whatever...I cant be blamed because ive got such a limited taxonomy of something that doesnt even exist in my culture...I dont think half the people in this country would know the difference between a pistol and a revolver...so I personally dont think I'm doing too bad:)

Tyburn
12-20-2012, 09:05 PM
http://whichgun.com/img/blog-posts/would-you-send-a-gun-to-the-uk-to-help-defend-a-british-home/poster.jpg

Tyburn, I really find it ironic that you and other Brits lecture us about gun ownership given what happened within the lifetime of people that are still alive. Please read up on WW2. Pictured above is a poster from The American Committee For Defense of British Homes. They collected donations from private American citizens to help arm England to defend against a Nazi invasion of the British Isles. According to the last weekly report released by the committee on Dec. 6, 1941 (the day before the bombing of Pearl Harbor) private American citizens had donated and shipped 5,133 shotguns and rifles, 6,337 revolvers, 110 Thompson submachine guns and 642,291 rounds of ammunition. The committee was also able to procure from U.S. government surplus and ship to Britain a total of 13, 763 revolvers, 30,000 magazines and 1.4 million rounds of ammunition. Part of the reason you are not speaking German is because American "gun nuts" helped arm you and save your bacon. When your Muslims start their takeover, please don't expect us to arm you again. I have a feeling the help won't be there this time.

So sorry if what I am about to say offends anyone, but what PTM said typifies exactly what a lot of English people feel towards America, and why. I have to say, that I understand your culture FAR better then you understand mine. But when I am faced with such an outrage as the bloody pretense of smug "help" which only made matters worse...rather then telling the truth about these "Gifts" of defence to Britons...well I'm afraid we open the history books and tell the truth, I'm sorry if that reflects badly on America, or upsets good americans, that are my friends, and cant be held responsible for the wayward nature of a grossly obease Federal thing...but I will never the less tell afew home truthes...You would do the same if roles were reversed...as you often do if I get my facts wrong :ashamed:


Oh...this would be help from Americans during the war would it? Americans that didnt even get involved until they were directly attacked...helpped us, and then pretend that THEY won the war?

This would be the America which helpped our nation by sending us "DONATED" supplies by sea across the Atlantic, and then in a time when it was loaded with cash and we had none because we had defended ourselves for years before the american intervention, turned round and told us it had been a loan, and expected repayment with interest which was still going on in MY lifetime.

I dont mean to be rude...but we would find ways of surviving without America...after all...the vast majority of our History, when we were at our height, with an Empire on which the sun never set, happened largely before "America" even existed in its modern form.

We survived the Normans, the Vikings, Nations that came and went in Our History before America...and Adolf never tried to invade this country. Why not is a mystery when despite your aid of firearms, we were a sitting duck after dunkirk. When all military stratagists lobbied Hitler, and rightly so from a germanic point of view, or even a sensible point of view if you want to win a war, to attack....He went for an insurmountable Russia.

Well..that will be the same reason why in a campaign of all night bombing, for fifty seven consecutive nights...something no American would know anything about since such an outrage never happened on American soil....the entire German Airforce, given a region, precisely one square mile in size, managed to miss the only large building and main target in the whole city.

You explain it. Or shall I? The Americans did not defend us...Our Defence came from GOD himself on both those two levels.

We are a shell of our former self...we lost everything, our Empire, our Wealth, our Power because instead of doing what was right, America left us to our fate...and then jumped in when we were almost dead on our feet, our Cities distroyed, our whole generation of men, dead.

So dont pretend that those arms were gifts...because we had to pay the Americans for everything they gave us...it was hardly from the kindness of their heart. It was about capitalistic gain and investment which America did, in Central Europe.

Shall we talk about what a success that has been? My,My, on the eve of what can only be described as a Federal Europe, with a successor of the German Chancellor as its head. Post War Europe is made in whose image? Coz, correct me if im wrong....but wasnt this what we were physically fighting to stop about 85 odd years ago.

Or would you rather we talked about the muslims, who bombed our capitol because we helpped you fight your wars?

F34R
12-20-2012, 11:02 PM
If anyone can, or is willing to, explain why the government and law enforcement need the weapons that are being considered to be banned, then you officially answer the question of why civilians need them. ;)

Play The Man
12-20-2012, 11:10 PM
So sorry if what I am about to say offends anyone, but what PTM said typifies exactly what a lot of English people feel towards America, and why. I have to say, that I understand your culture FAR better then you understand mine. But when I am faced with such an outrage as the bloody pretense of smug "help" which only made matters worse...rather then telling the truth about these "Gifts" of defence to Britons...well I'm afraid we open the history books and tell the truth, I'm sorry if that reflects badly on America, or upsets good americans, that are my friends, and cant be held responsible for the wayward nature of a grossly obease Federal thing...but I will never the less tell afew home truthes...You would do the same if roles were reversed...as you often do if I get my facts wrong :ashamed:


Oh...this would be help from Americans during the war would it? Americans that didnt even get involved until they were directly attacked...helpped us, and then pretend that THEY won the war?

This would be the America which helpped our nation by sending us "DONATED" supplies by sea across the Atlantic, and then in a time when it was loaded with cash and we had none because we had defended ourselves for years before the american intervention, turned round and told us it had been a loan, and expected repayment with interest which was still going on in MY lifetime.

I dont mean to be rude...but we would find ways of surviving without America...after all...the vast majority of our History, when we were at our height, with an Empire on which the sun never set, happened largely before "America" even existed in its modern form.

We survived the Normans, the Vikings, Nations that came and went in Our History before America...and Adolf never tried to invade this country. Why not is a mystery when despite your aid of firearms, we were a sitting duck after dunkirk. When all military stratagists lobbied Hitler, and rightly so from a germanic point of view, or even a sensible point of view if you want to win a war, to attack....He went for an insurmountable Russia.

Well..that will be the same reason why in a campaign of all night bombing, for fifty seven consecutive nights...something no American would know anything about since such an outrage never happened on American soil....the entire German Airforce, given a region, precisely one square mile in size, managed to miss the only large building and main target in the whole city.

You explain it. Or shall I? The Americans did not defend us...Our Defence came from GOD himself on both those two levels.

We are a shell of our former self...we lost everything, our Empire, our Wealth, our Power because instead of doing what was right, America left us to our fate...and then jumped in when we were almost dead on our feet, our Cities distroyed, our whole generation of men, dead.

So dont pretend that those arms were gifts...because we had to pay the Americans for everything they gave us...it was hardly from the kindness of their heart. It was about capitalistic gain and investment which America did, in Central Europe.

Shall we talk about what a success that has been? My,My, on the eve of what can only be described as a Federal Europe, with a successor of the German Chancellor as its head. Post War Europe is made in whose image? Coz, correct me if im wrong....but wasnt this what we were physically fighting to stop about 85 odd years ago.

Or would you rather we talked about the muslims, who bombed our capitol because we helpped you fight your wars?

Tyburn, I would consider myself an Anglophile. I don't dance on the grave of the British Empire. I wish that Britain would have been better armed prior to WW2. Thankfully, they were able to fight off the Nazi attack; however, it was by no means a certainty at the time. My point is that a country should be well-armed because we never know what dangers and threats await us. I want our country to be well-armed against any threat: be it Mexican drug lords, Muslim terrorists or the Red Chinese Army.
As far as the U.S. saving Britain, I believe the comment Churchill made about his thoughts when he went to sleep on Pearl Harbor Day: I "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."
The arms donated by the Committee were gifts from private American citizens. The British government also had agents purchasing arms in America. You are probably referring to debts related to the Lend-Lease Act, which involved warships, not private arms donated by private citizens.
You sound like a Calvinist saying that God defended you rather than the U.S. :laugh:
I don't want to burst your bubble about St. Paul's, but I am going to relate a comment I heard from a WW2 pilot's wife. The pilot and his wife were touring Europe many years after WW2 and were touring a cathedral in an Axis country (I think it was Austria but can't recall). The docent mentioned that the cathedral had made it through the war unscathed and attributed it to the beneficence of the Almighty. After the tour, the pilot whispered to his wife that the cathedral was within the area of his bombing runs and was purposely left unscathed so it could serve as a landmark to help with coordinates in the era before GPS. I don't mean to question your faith, but the German pilots probably didn't destroy it so they had a landmark for future bombings (e.g. your next target is a factory 1.3 miles north of the cathedral).

BradW
12-21-2012, 01:34 AM
Yeah, that's what everyone told the Revolutionaries in colonial times. They were completely outgunned and outclassed by the British military; but America won its independence just the same.



Oh, I thought you were actually going to provide a link to a news story, so that we could all read it and share this information. But instead it seems that you're only here to start a fight and insult anyone who disagrees with you.

Maybe you should allow us time to mourn and time to process this tragedy, before getting on here and pushing all of your anti-gun opinions. Your attitude is very disrespectful so I think you need a few days to cool off.

my attitude is disrespectful ? no more then yours is Nate.

one of the children that was killed on Friday actually lived in my community and
a few months ago her family move to Newtown in order for her mother to take a job there.
now although i didnt know this girl personally i have a friend that knew her and her family very well and i have been talking with him about this tragedy ever since Friday...
my friend and his family are mourning the loss of not only this girl but all the victims and im grieving right along with him.

now,as far as my anti-gun opinions go...well,i dont have a problem with guns at all,in fact i probably own more guns then you do...
but i dont have any hand guns or assault rifles because i see those as weapons intended for one purpose only...killing people.....and i dont think they should be in a private citizens hands.

and while i dont have any my brother in law does,he owns a few hand guns but he keeps them in lock boxes and the lock boxes are kept inside a gun safe
and he is the only person in his family that can get at them...no one else knows the combination to his safe...not even his wife.
he does however have numerous other guns as in hunting rifles that his family does have access to.

so you see Nate...every assumption you made,was wrong.

F34R
12-21-2012, 03:15 AM
my attitude is disrespectful ? no more then yours is Nate.

one of the children that was killed on Friday actually lived in my community and
a few months ago her family move to Newtown in order for her mother to take a job there.
now although i didnt know this girl personally i have a friend that knew her and her family very well and i have been talking with him about this tragedy ever since Friday...
my friend and his family are mourning the loss of not only this girl but all the victims and im grieving right along with him.

now,as far as my anti-gun opinions go...well,i dont have a problem with guns at all,in fact i probably own more guns then you do...
but i dont have any hand guns or assault rifles because i see those as weapons intended for one purpose only...killing people.....and i dont think they should be in a private citizens hands.

and while i dont have any my brother in law does,he owns a few hand guns but he keeps them in lock boxes and the lock boxes are kept inside a gun safe
and he is the only person in his family that can get at them...no one else knows the combination to his safe...not even his wife.
he does however have numerous other guns as in hunting rifles that his family does have access to.

so you see Nate...every assumption you made,was wrong.
I don't understand this concept at all. Cops can carry the guns you don't feel private citizens should have.... how does that make any sense by your line of thinking? Cops can kill the bad guys, but private citizens can't? What's the deal here? Why shouldn't my brother be able to protect himself, but I can?

I've yet to see anyone actually debate and offer some actual logical information that explains why law enforcement and military should get the guns that citizens will "soon" not be allowed to buy.

BradW
12-21-2012, 04:11 AM
I don't understand this concept at all. Cops can carry the guns you don't feel private citizens should have.... how does that make any sense by your line of thinking? Cops can kill the bad guys, but private citizens can't? What's the deal here? Why shouldn't my brother be able to protect himself, but I can?

I've yet to see anyone actually debate and offer some actual logical information that explains why law enforcement and military should get the guns that citizens will "soon" not be allowed to buy.

law enforcement are paid to protect the public and in doing their duty they routinely
have to deal with gun toting criminals and need access to something other then a hunting rifle
to protect themselves from harm.

private citizens on the other hand hardly ever encounter criminals,most of the time a persons life is only endanger when a mentally disturbed person
flips out and trys to kill everyone in sight...or maybe its someone thats just had enough of their spouse or family or coworkers,but no matter what the reason if these
people didnt have access to hand guns and assault rifles the death toll would surly be a lot lower.
a person can be killed by any gun but to kill a group of people it is much easier
with a semiautomatic or fully automatic hand gun or rifle then it is with a hunting rifle.

huan
12-21-2012, 04:45 AM
law enforcement are paid to protect the public and in doing their duty they routinely
have to deal with gun toting criminals and need access to something other then a hunting rifle
to protect themselves from harm.

private citizens on the other hand hardly ever encounter criminals,most of the time a persons life is only endanger when a mentally disturbed person
flips out and trys to kill everyone in sight...or maybe its someone thats just had enough of their spouse or family or coworkers,but no matter what the reason if these
people didnt have access to hand guns and assault rifles the death toll would surly be a lot lower.
a person can be killed by any gun but to kill a group of people it is much easier
with a semiautomatic or fully automatic hand gun or rifle then it is with a hunting rifle.

It is beyond obvious that you have little to no experience with firearms, as these types of opinions tend to go hand in hand with being uninformed. and your made up statistics about cops encountering more criminals than citizens is also laughable. tell that to my wife who walked in on someone robbing our home yesterday. it happens, and a heck of a lot more than you think.

NateR
12-21-2012, 07:18 AM
law enforcement are paid to protect the public and in doing their duty they routinely
have to deal with gun toting criminals and need access to something other then a hunting rifle
to protect themselves from harm.

Except for the fact that law enforcement officers frequently put their own safety ahead of the citizens they are supposed to serve and protect.

As the saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

But that doesn't mean the police will actually do anything when they get there because police are under no legal obligation to prevent crime or prevent harm to regular citizens. Anytime victims of crime have tried to sue the police for dereliction of duty in preventing violent crimes, some of which have lead to deaths, the victims have lost as the courts usually side with the police.

Look up Warren vs. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (DC 1981), in which police officers allowed three college girls to be raped and brutalized for over 14 hours after the girls had called 911 for help. The police arrived on the scene, knocked on the door and when the rapists didn't answer the door, because they were too busy raping the girls, the police left. When the girls tried to sue the police force, the courts ruled on the side of the police. The rapists were only armed with one knife. A single handgun in the possession of one of the girls could have prevented the entire crime. It's hard to imagine a gun making the situation much worse.

Then look up Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, 545 US 748 (2005). A couple had gone through a rough divorce and the husband was given a restraining order stating that he was not allowed within 100 feet of his wife or his 3 daughters, under penalty of law. The police were ordered to enforce the restraining order by any means that they saw fit, including arresting the husband if he violated it. Unfortunately, the husband did violate his restraining order and kidnapped his daughters. The wife called the police but they refused to do anything about it for several hours and kept telling her to call back later. She finally went to the police station at 12:50 AM and one of the officers took her report, then went to get something to eat. The husband did eventually show up at the police station at around 3:20 AM.... shooting. He was gunned down by the police, but it was too late. He had already killed all three of his daughters.

When the mother tried suing the police officers for not taking action sooner and not enforcing the restraining order, the courts sided with the police.

American citizens have no Constitutional right to protection from the police. We do have a Constitutional right to carry weapons to protect ourselves, however.

So, if someone thinks they don't need a gun because the police will protect them, then they might be in for an extremely rude awakening at some point in the future.

flo
12-21-2012, 09:53 AM
It is beyond obvious that you have little to no experience with firearms, as these types of opinions tend to go hand in hand with being uninformed. and your made up statistics about cops encountering more criminals than citizens is also laughable. tell that to my wife who walked in on someone robbing our home yesterday. it happens, and a heck of a lot more than you think.

Huan, that's horrible, I hope your wife is OK and that they weren't able to get away with anything! I worry about the same thing.

And you are absolutely correct, in large part the police come after the crime or, in the best-case scenario, during. They cannot anticipate crime, they respond to it. We law abiding citizens are the ones who must initially confront criminals (except in the obvious cases such as motor vehicle infractions, etc) and I want to have the protection and reassurance of a firearm if I have to confront a break-in or assault until the police can arrive.

BradW
12-21-2012, 01:34 PM
It is beyond obvious that you have little to no experience with firearms, as these types of opinions tend to go hand in hand with being uninformed. and your made up statistics about cops encountering more criminals than citizens is also laughable. tell that to my wife who walked in on someone robbing our home yesterday. it happens, and a heck of a lot more than you think.

sorry to hear that,hope your wife is okay,that indeed would be a very stressful thing to go through and it will take sometime to get over.

Did the person robbing your home have a gun huan ?

have the police found him or are they looking for him ?

i never made anything up huan...the police do indeed confront a lot more criminals then civilians do.

and i have plenty of experience with guns.

BradW
12-21-2012, 02:00 PM
Huan, that's horrible, I hope your wife is OK and that they weren't able to get away with anything! I worry about the same thing.

And you are absolutely correct, in large part the police come after the crime or, in the best-case scenario, during. They cannot anticipate crime, they respond to it. We law abiding citizens are the ones who must initially confront criminals (except in the obvious cases such as motor vehicle infractions, etc) and I want to have the protection and reassurance of a firearm if I have to confront a break-in or assault until the police can arrive.

you do know flo that most private citizens that are killed in north America in
their own homes actually know the person pulling the trigger and the likely hood
of someone you dont know coming into your house and threatening you is very small indeed....
unless of course you live very near places where drug users frequent.

BradW
12-21-2012, 02:26 PM
Except for the fact that law enforcement officers frequently put their own safety ahead of the citizens they are supposed to serve and protect.

As the saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

But that doesn't mean the police will actually do anything when they get there because police are under no legal obligation to prevent crime or prevent harm to regular citizens. Anytime victims of crime have tried to sue the police for dereliction of duty in preventing violent crimes, some of which have lead to deaths, the victims have lost as the courts usually side with the police.

Look up Warren vs. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (DC 1981), in which police officers allowed three college girls to be raped and brutalized for over 14 hours after the girls had called 911 for help. The police arrived on the scene, knocked on the door and when the rapists didn't answer the door, because they were too busy raping the girls, the police left. When the girls tried to sue the police force, the courts ruled on the side of the police. The rapists were only armed with one knife. A single handgun in the possession of one of the girls could have prevented the entire crime. It's hard to imagine a gun making the situation much worse.

Then look up Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, 545 US 748 (2005). A couple had gone through a rough divorce and the husband was given a restraining order stating that he was not allowed within 100 feet of his wife or his 3 daughters, under penalty of law. The police were ordered to enforce the restraining order by any means that they saw fit, including arresting the husband if he violated it. Unfortunately, the husband did violate his restraining order and kidnapped his daughters. The wife called the police but they refused to do anything about it for several hours and kept telling her to call back later. She finally went to the police station at 12:50 AM and one of the officers took her report, then went to get something to eat. The husband did eventually show up at the police station at around 3:20 AM.... shooting. He was gunned down by the police, but it was too late. He had already killed all three of his daughters.

When the mother tried suing the police officers for not taking action sooner and not enforcing the restraining order, the courts sided with the police.

American citizens have no Constitutional right to protection from the police. We do have a Constitutional right to carry weapons to protect ourselves, however.

So, if someone thinks they don't need a gun because the police will protect them, then they might be in for an extremely rude awakening at some point in the future.

it sounds like your legal system could use an over haul.

i never ever said people shouldn't be able to protect themselves with guns
and have guns readily available to them...i just think certain types of guns should have greater restrictions on them and some banned completely.

tell me Nate if someone was breaking into your house and you were home
do you think you would have time to get your hand gun out of the lock box
and load it in time to confront them or not ?

or do you think your hand gun doesn't need to be in a lock box but maybe in your night stand or desk drawer so its easily accessible to you.

I honestly hope you never have to find out but what i will say is if someone broke
into my house i have a 30-30 that im sure would be just as effective at stopping
someone as a hand gun or an assault rifle but would be impractical for going out and
killing a large group of people...mostly because my rifle will hold only 5 plus one in the chamber.

huan
12-21-2012, 03:49 PM
sorry to hear that,hope your wife is okay,that indeed would be a very stressful thing to go through and it will take sometime to get over.

Did the person robbing your home have a gun huan ?

have the police found him or are they looking for him ?

i never made anything up huan...the police do indeed confront a lot more criminals then civilians do.

and i have plenty of experience with guns.

giving thanks to God my wife and kids are okay. I do not know if the criminal entered unarmed but they managed to escape with a couple of my firearms in the process. my primary semi-auto pistol and my go to bolt rifle for deer season. police are still investigating, here's to hoping the prints turn up someone. lets just say the suspect is extremely fortunate I was not the one coming home at that time.

while cops individually may encounter more criminals on an individual basis, it stands to reason that there are far more private citizens and criminals than armed policemen and policewomen. criminals and cowards typically also do not go out of their way to solicit attention from individuals who are armed, which obviously includes the police force.

were you aware the clackamas mall shooter in oregon a couple weeks ago was deterred by a citizen who was carrying concealed? when faced with this armed civilian who drew on him the coward no longer had unprotected sheep to prey upon and the coward wolf's course of action was to run to the nearest stairwell and commit suicide. the civilian did not even open fire, as he was not sure he could engage the threat without wounding one of the many victims trying to escape the chaotic situation. how many lives did this civilian save? we will never know, but that man is a hero and I would be proud to shake his hand.

several months ago here in Phoenix a young 14 year old boy who was babysitting his 3 siblings shot a home intruder and protected those precious little ones from evil.

these types of stories are endless, yet the news typically does not cover many of them as such stories do not agree with their and our government's anti-gun and disarm agenda.

you claim to be familiar with guns, but I cannot comprehend how someone who is so familiar with guns can be of the opinion that making it harder for law abiding citizens to come by a type of tool is somehow going to deter law breakers, outlaws, and evildoers. what types of guns I own for my own and my families protection is nobody's business, and especially not the government's.

civilian access to firearms of ALL types is the last line of defense in this country. God help us if we disarm the sheepdogs just because the sight of the sheepdog's teeth reminds the sheep of preying wolves. what a sad bunch of cowardly sheep we have become...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin.

flo
12-21-2012, 07:42 PM
you do know flo that most private citizens that are killed in north America in
their own homes actually know the person pulling the trigger and the likely hood
of someone you dont know coming into your house and threatening you is very small indeed....
unless of course you live very near places where drug users frequent.

My feeling is that -- whether the chance of a break-in or assault is great or small - I'm going to protect myself and be prepared. It is my right as an American to own a firearm. It's up to me to be knowledgeable about gun usage, safety and storage.

Bonnie
12-21-2012, 07:48 PM
It is beyond obvious that you have little to no experience with firearms, as these types of opinions tend to go hand in hand with being uninformed. and your made up statistics about cops encountering more criminals than citizens is also laughable. tell that to my wife who walked in on someone robbing our home yesterday. it happens, and a heck of a lot more than you think.

Huan, I know that must have been a very frightening experience for her, for all of you.

Home invasions and robberies are happening more frequently now. You see these stories on the news constantly especially around the holiday season. These criminals are becoming more and more brazen all the time, they don't care if anyone is home or who they terrorize, hurt or kill. And alarm systems don't seem to be a deterrent at all...for homes or businesses. You can't feel safe anywhere, in your home, or out in public. Here are a few examples of crimes that happened in local and surrounding areas this past year:

A family was having a barbeque at their home with family and friends. They were sitting in their yard, having a good time when two men drive up, get out with guns and force them into the house and rob them. There are many stories like these taking place. Some of these criminals are posing as police officers.

Last Christmas, an elderly couple was followed home from the pharmacy. The guy waited outside their front door for his chance to gain entry. When the elderly man let their dog out, the man forced his way in and beat both of them with his bare hands, he beat the elderly woman to death. This couple were in their 80's, they had been married for 60+ years.

We had an incredible number of "smash and grab" robberies of businesses this past year. A lot of them were jewelry stores, one was in a mall, a lot of them in broad daylight, people all around, cameras recording them, they didn't care. That's how brazen these criminals have gotten. It was frustrating to hear each time that they had gotten away, and it was infuriating seeing them on video terrorizing and threatening people during these robberies. I admit when I saw the videos, I wished that someone had been able to take them out.

F34R
12-21-2012, 08:04 PM
law enforcement are paid to protect the public and in doing their duty they routinely
have to deal with gun toting criminals and need access to something other then a hunting rifle
to protect themselves from harm.

private citizens on the other hand hardly ever encounter criminals,most of the time a persons life is only endanger when a mentally disturbed person
flips out and trys to kill everyone in sight...or maybe its someone thats just had enough of their spouse or family or coworkers,but no matter what the reason if these
people didnt have access to hand guns and assault rifles the death toll would surly be a lot lower.
a person can be killed by any gun but to kill a group of people it is much easier
with a semiautomatic or fully automatic hand gun or rifle then it is with a hunting rifle.
Police are more often called to crime scenes that criminals have already confronted civilians. Why do you think Police need more than a hunting rifle, but civilians don't? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Police are victims of crimes far less than civilians. "Let's go rob the police... even though they have guns", or "Let's rob people that probably don't have guns, training, bullet res vests on, etc., etc." I don't know where you came up with the private citizens on the other hand hardly ever encounter criminals,most of the time a persons life is only endanger when a mentally disturbed person
flips out and trys to kill everyone in sight
That's insane to even believe that lol. Police just rarely encounter criminals until those criminals have already committed a crime. smh
sorry to hear that,hope your wife is okay,that indeed would be a very stressful thing to go through and it will take sometime to get over.

Did the person robbing your home have a gun huan ?

have the police found him or are they looking for him ?

i never made anything up huan...the police do indeed confront a lot more criminals then civilians do.

and i have plenty of experience with guns.

See, your own example here... the police have to find the criminals to deal with them, AFTER that criminal already victimized a civilian.

NateR
12-21-2012, 08:05 PM
it sounds like your legal system could use an over haul.

i never ever said people shouldn't be able to protect themselves with guns
and have guns readily available to them...i just think certain types of guns should have greater restrictions on them and some banned completely.

tell me Nate if someone was breaking into your house and you were home
do you think you would have time to get your hand gun out of the lock box
and load it in time to confront them or not ?

or do you think your hand gun doesn't need to be in a lock box but maybe in your night stand or desk drawer so its easily accessible to you.

I honestly hope you never have to find out but what i will say is if someone broke
into my house i have a 30-30 that im sure would be just as effective at stopping
someone as a hand gun or an assault rifle but would be impractical for going out and
killing a large group of people...mostly because my rifle will hold only 5 plus one in the chamber.

Police forces in the United States have always struggled to maintain a tenuous balance between freedom and safety. It's not actually the job of the police to make their communities safer, their job is to enforce the law. Ideally, public safety is a bi-product of effective law enforcement. However, this nation was founded on the principle that nobody can protect you better then yourself and only a tyrannical government would limit a citizen's ability to protect his/herself.

This quote is usually attributed to Ben Franklin, but it still rings true no matter who actually said it:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Freedom is a dangerous prospect and it always will be.

As for me, I live by myself, so there is no need for a lock box or any reason to store the gun unloaded. Not that I live in a particularly dangerous area. Hillsboro is one of those towns where you don't even have to lock your doors at night. Protecting myself from break ins is not the primary reason that I own a handgun, even though that is always a possibility since we do live near a prison.

I own a gun, because it's my God-given right guaranteed by the Constitution, thus I don't have to provide any other reason.

Do I feel safer with a gun in the house? Maybe. Does owning a gun make me feel powerful? No. Most of the time I forget that I even own it. It just sits in a drawer right now and it's probably been a while since I've actually fired it for any reason. I simply believe I would be derelict in my patriotic duty as an American if I didn't own at least one gun.

Tyburn
12-21-2012, 08:14 PM
1)Tyburn, I would consider myself an Anglophile. I don't dance on the grave of the British Empire. I wish that Britain would have been better armed prior to WW2. Thankfully, they were able to fight off the Nazi attack; however, it was by no means a certainty at the time.

2) My point is that a country should be well-armed because we never know what dangers and threats await us. I want our country to be well-armed against any threat: be it Mexican drug lords, Muslim terrorists or the Red Chinese Army.
As far as the U.S. saving Britain, I believe the comment Churchill made about his thoughts when he went to sleep on Pearl Harbor Day: I "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

3) The arms donated by the Committee were gifts from private American citizens. The British government also had agents purchasing arms in America. You are probably referring to debts related to the Lend-Lease Act, which involved warships, not private arms donated by private citizens.

4) You sound like a Calvinist saying that God defended you rather than the U.S. :laugh:
I don't want to burst your bubble about St. Paul's, but I am going to relate a comment I heard from a WW2 pilot's wife. The pilot and his wife were touring Europe many years after WW2 and were touring a cathedral in an Axis country (I think it was Austria but can't recall). The docent mentioned that the cathedral had made it through the war unscathed and attributed it to the beneficence of the Almighty. After the tour, the pilot whispered to his wife that the cathedral was within the area of his bombing runs and was purposely left unscathed so it could serve as a landmark to help with coordinates in the era before GPS. I don't mean to question your faith, but the German pilots probably didn't destroy it so they had a landmark for future bombings (e.g. your next target is a factory 1.3 miles north of the cathedral).

1) I dont know what happened to those guns you know. I know they were not distributed to the general populas. I would suggest that one of three things happened. If they arrived in bulk they may well have been stored somewhere in the city...I am slightly embarissed to say that IF that happened, chances are they are still sitting in a bunker somewhere. The second possibility is that they were returned to the Americans after the war...Government to Government. Dont forget some of the shipment would not have made it if it came in dribs and drabs because the Germans did have a habit of sinking American Cargo vessils when they cottoned onto the fact they were breaching a continental embargo to get to us. I suspect the most likely thing to happen, is that they were given to what was known as "The Home Front" in which case...I strongly suspect that the guns would have never been used, collected up and given to the Territorial Army and Reservists...if thats the case...you have to realize...they never made it to average citizens....they were probably never even aware of the arms shipments. They basically went to the military....I wonder how many private donaters would have given had they known that point. In essence, you contributed arms to an armed force...yet keep arms to save yourself from the armed force...so I'm not sure if they would have given had they known they were simply giving some guns to the British Government...NOT, categorically NOT the British People. :unsure-1:

2) We dont have quite the same reverence for Winston Churchill...not even the people who were around during the war. Firstly...He WASNT Ellected. He became Prime Minister by default when the Reigning Minister resigned AFTER the start of the war. Secondly, the moment the war was over, so was Winston...they voted him out right away. Finally...Winston returned in the 1950s...and was dire as a peace time Minister. His charisma and charm were completely circumstantial. The War made Winston...NOT the other way round. He was not particularly liked by some in the Commons because he...erm...he did like his bottle a bit, and he was sometimes increadibly rude to people. "I may be drunk, but you are ugly, and tommorow I will be Sober" is the most well known :laugh: Finally...the Brittons didnt run with his sudden distaste of Russia....The Americans went absolutely mad with the idea...but you will notice a kinda absence of England in the Cold War....I dont think we'd say that we like the Russians particularly...but England didnt quite follow a dire hatred of all things communistic.

3) British Agents were not supplying the British Public with weapons. They were Government Agents that would definately have been supplying the Home Front rather then the public. THATS WHY you have this reaction from Brits...the general public DID NOT get those guns. I dont think its widely known that America in any fashion gave an firearms before their entry into the war. I have to say that when I read the poster which said with the permission of the British Government it made some sence. They wouldnt give those guns out to the public...its against their own laws...so if they are accepting such gifts its for themselves. In the event of an actual land invasion therefore, it wouldnt have made any difference.

4) The Germans DIDNT work like that. The Germans didnt need to SEE, they used this sonar thing, where the the pilots got two different tones, and when the tones became one tone, they knew they were over the target. The Germans were into mechanics and stuff like that. They had some kinda radar in the baltic and one on the continent that basically gave latitude and longditude...and when the two crossed, the pilots released. After all...they DID bomb Coventry Cathedral during the Blitz...try to understand that for London, Saint Pauls was a symbol of defiance. Goebels, the propergandar minister recognised this, and thus Saint Pauls was the SPECIFIC target...it was more important to distroy that single building then any other...infact, if they only hit the Church and not a single other building, they would have won in terms of morale. Their aim, wasnt to smush the city...the aim was to distroy Saint Paul's. When the Blitz started...we knew it...they avoided Westminister...the avoided the docklands, Canary wharf (which wasnt quite what it is now...the Money centre) NOPE...they attacked a Square Mile where NOONE LIVES...there is only a few things in London....The Barbicon, The Stock Exchange, and Forty Churches NOT including Saint Pauls...plus about Twenty Halls for each of the livery Guilds, The bank of England (but only administratively speaking) Tower Bridge, and The Tower of London.

They didnt hit the houses of parliament, they didnt go after buckingham palace...they didnt even go after residential estates until after the first weeks of the blitz. No they only targetted the Cathedral.

They distroyed everything virtually in that square mile...EXCEPT for the biggest, most obvious, symbol of British Morale. Hitler SPECIFICALLY wanted to distroy the Cathedral...that was made quite clear.

The British did not have the same Technology as the Germans...we needed things to see where we were on the ground, and we couldnt fire unmanned drones....without defections, we wouldnt have attained the nuclear knowledge. You might say that was an act of GOD also....because in all intense and purposes Germany should have invaded England, should have easily smushed the Cathedral, and should have invented the atom bomb first. There is no adequet explaination for some of these things.

Eye witnesses said it was like some huge umbrella had opened above the cathedral...The photographs are...very disturbing...Besides...if you destroyed the city like they did...you dont need to come back, so why leave a landmark?

Remember...I Worked at Saint Paul's Cathedral thats how I know the above.

GOD saved the Cathedral to save the morale of the people as a sign of definace against Evil. Adolf Hitler would be denied the soul of the nation. Goebels cried himself to sleep when they had to cancell the last wave of Bombers...two had gone over. One with incenduries, one with blast bombs...the third wave couldnt get across the channel coz of...bad weather :ninja: Who knows if the full raid had hit that first night, whether Saint Paul's would have been distroyed. But...it wasnt to be for Deutschland.

NateR
12-21-2012, 08:18 PM
Then there is the example set by Kennesaw, Georgia here in the US.

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Back in 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law that required every citizen to keep a gun in their home (there are exemptions for those with a criminal records, conscientious objectors, the disabled, etc.).

Most opponents of the law claimed that crime would skyrocket and there would shootings in the streets on a daily basis. None of that has happened. Crime dropped 89% right after the law was passed and has stayed low ever since.

Kennesaw has seen no negative side-effects of the law. Their population continues to grow at levels consistent with the rest of the state, and is actually home to more manufacturing businesses and any other city in its county.

So, that's a real world example of how more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens can actually make our communities safer.

BradW
12-21-2012, 08:28 PM
My feeling is that -- whether the chance of a break-in or assault is great or small - I'm going to protect myself and be prepared. It is my right as an American to own a firearm. It's up to me to be knowledgeable about gun usage, safety and storage.

do you own an assault rifle flo ?

do you feel your hand guns are secure enough that they could not be used
against you or your family?

hand guns are people killers and hunting rifles are animal killers...
now having said that i know either could be used for either purpose...
but when you hold them in your hands they inspire a different thought process as to their individual uses.

but thats just the way i see it.

Tyburn
12-21-2012, 08:30 PM
American citizens have no Constitutional right to protection from the police. We do have a Constitutional right to carry weapons to protect ourselves, however.


its EXACTLY the opposite in our case...except...those police officers arent armed any more then us :)

This is the epitome of the difference. In England, the police and the Government are supposed to protect us...that is their primary function. Its more important that they protect us then provide leadership :laugh:

Yet they must do that without firearms...its not like we live in a country where we arent allowed guns but the police are...NO...the police almost NEVER have guns either. :laugh:

Guns are confined to The Military, The Ministry of Defence Police, The British Transport Police, and the special opporations units of the police. The latter shouldnt be allowed firearms period because they dont know how to use them without killing innocent people. This Squad is ultimately responsible for being the trigger that started the London Riots, and for the Charles De Menzies murder. They also lie about the version of events.

The Military...well...we never see them...I dont think we even have much of one now :unsure-1: The Navy stay on their ships, the Army are over-deployed...and the airforce are indoors, so I dont really include them, like I wouldnt include tank drivers :laugh: The MOD Police shouldnt have guns either...they never use them, they just walk around with them trying to look important.

The British Transport Police SHOULD have Guns and deserve them. They were EXCELLENT after the london bombings. They all had machine guns (well...thats what I call them :laugh:) and they stood for hours and hours looking after the stattions. They also have their fare share of good results without killing innocent people.

flo
12-21-2012, 08:48 PM
I own a gun, because it's my God-given right guaranteed by the Constitution, thus I don't have to provide any other reason.

Do I feel safer with a gun in the house? Maybe. Does owning a gun make me feel powerful? No. Most of the time I forget that I even own it. It just sits in a drawer right now and it's probably been a while since I've actually fired it for any reason. I simply believe I would be derelict in my patriotic duty as an American if I didn't own at least one gun.



This.

Tyburn
12-21-2012, 08:55 PM
it sounds like your legal system could use an over haul.

i never ever said people shouldn't be able to protect themselves with guns
and have guns readily available to them...i just think certain types of guns should have greater restrictions on them and some banned completely.


THIS

huan
12-21-2012, 09:11 PM
THIS

not in the least. this is why people need to be more informed on firearms in general before making silly claims and assertions.

here is a relevant article, and written by a self proclaimed left-winger, on why renewing the "assault weapon" ban makes no sense:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

F34R
12-21-2012, 10:05 PM
not in the least. this is why people need to be more informed on firearms in general before making silly claims and assertions.

here is a relevant article, and written by a self proclaimed left-winger, on why renewing the "assault weapon" ban makes no sense:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Great article. I've plastered it on facebook.

NateR
12-21-2012, 10:24 PM
THIS

Not at all. I believe that most weapons available to the military should also be available for private ownership. This includes tanks (which are not specifically illegal in many areas) and most forms of anti-aircraft weaponry.

Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons obviously should be banned; but those are heavily controlled and mostly banned even within our military.

It seems after every Presidential election someone comments on the peaceful transfer of power in the US government that really is a rare and remarkable thing in this world of military coups and armed uprisings.

But why is that the case here in the US? Is it because Americans are just such wonderful people? Not at all. It's because our citizens are so armed to the teeth that a hostile takeover of the government is not possible. :laugh:

And don't try to claim that you have something similar over there in England. As long as you still have that monarchy (even if it is a puppet monarchy), then you don't have any real transfer of power within your government.

BradW
12-21-2012, 10:52 PM
not in the least. this is why people need to be more informed on firearms in general before making silly claims and assertions.

here is a relevant article, and written by a self proclaimed left-winger, on why renewing the "assault weapon" ban makes no sense:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

they may be silly claims to you because you have an agenda but to most of the people in the free world outside of the USA they are not.

rearnakedchoke
12-21-2012, 11:40 PM
U guys are saying owning a gun is a god given right .... Please clarify for me .... No joke ... Not even being an ass ... Did god write your constitution? Does it say in the bible that guns are a right?

Bonnie
12-22-2012, 12:10 AM
Here is a couple of tributes, one, a montage of voices set to Ed Sheeran's "Autumn Leaves", I just heard it earlier on the radio; the other is a tribute from the show, The Voice. Scroll down the articles to "play" each:

"Here’s the montage we put together to capture the raw emotion of December 14th and pay tribute to the brave teachers and victims."

http://mix965houston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/20/our-tribute-to-newtown-ed-sheerans-autumn-leaves/


"Last night, The Voice shared its own special moment when all four coaches, Adam Levine, Blake Shelton, Cee Lo Green and Christina Aguilera, along with host Carson Daly, Christina Milian and this season’s contestants all stood on stage holding a placard with each victim’s name on it. The group sang a rendition of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”."

http://mix965houston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/the-voice-pays-tribute-to-sandy-hook-with-touching-hallelujah-tribute/

huan
12-22-2012, 12:11 AM
they may be silly claims to you because you have an agenda but to most of the people in the free world outside of the USA they are not.

they're silly because they are nonsensical and based on uninformed opinions rather than facts. but you're partially right, I do have an agenda: the rights of the individual; their right to live, enjoy liberty, and pursue happiness. I realize this is difficult for non US citizens to empathize with, and that is rather unfortunate.

flo
12-22-2012, 02:27 AM
U guys are saying owning a gun is a god given right .... Please clarify for me .... No joke ... Not even being an ass ... Did god write your constitution? Does it say in the bible that guns are a right?

We Americans (at least, the ones who are constitutionalists) believe our rights are God-given. It is a belief, RNC. Like faith. Those God-given rights in which we believe are confirmed by our Constitution.

You shouldn't belittle us and our Constitution, which we cherish, by asking if "God wrote it" or if it says "in the bible that guns are a right". You are very disrespectful to ask for clarification and claim you aren't joking while making those two statements ridiculing our beliefs. We don't ask that you accept them, they are ours. Please respect that.

F34R
12-22-2012, 03:23 AM
U guys are saying owning a gun is a god given right .... Please clarify for me .... No joke ... Not even being an ass ... Did god write your constitution? Does it say in the bible that guns are a right?

Rights aren't dictated by the Government, nor are they created by the Constitution. Rights are from God and are inalienable. PERIOD. The Right to Bear Arms is a God given right, and is not able to be denied by the Government.

There you go. Clarified.

adamt
12-22-2012, 03:47 AM
do you own an assault rifle flo ?

do you feel your hand guns are secure enough that they could not be used
against you or your family?

hand guns are people killers and hunting rifles are animal killers...
now having said that i know either could be used for either purpose...
but when you hold them in your hands they inspire a different thought process as to their individual uses.

but thats just the way i see it.

i own an ak47 and two 30 round clips, in fact i went and bought 400 more rounds of ammo and two more 30 round clips just today, just cause i can, and cause i don't appreciate people telling me i can't, and yes my ak 47 has a bayonet on it,

i hunt and kill stuff with a handgun, all animals, never people

i hunt coyotes with my ak47

i euthanize sick and lame pigs with a handgun, do you think i ought to take a 30-06 down to my barn and blow a sick pigs head off, versus popping it behind the ear with a .22 i don't think blasting a sick pig with a high powered rifle is a peta approved euthanasia method

adamt
12-22-2012, 04:10 AM
face it, school shooting aren't a political issue, they are not a gun control issue, they are a moral issue

people are getting high on epsom salts and keyboard dusters for pete's sake, should we ban those?

the fact is, that if people want or are willing to do evil, evil will be found to do. if someone wants to get high, they will find or create a way to get high. I mean who thought up a way to mix ether, sinus pills, fertilizer, drano and a bunch of other nasty stuff then cook it into meth?!?!?! Who first sniffed sharpies long enough to get buzzed? Who smoked incense and told everyone it was synthetic meth?

if adam lansza wanted to kill 20 5 year old kids he would have found a way to do it,


the only thing that would stop an adam lanzsa is a conscience of their own, or the hand of God protecting a people or a nation.

flo
12-22-2012, 04:36 AM
do you own an assault rifle flo ?

do you feel your hand guns are secure enough that they could not be used
against you or your family?



I have a concealed weapons permit and a handgun. It is secure. I'm a good enough shot that I'm not worried about anyone taking it from me. I guess it's within the realm of possibility that someone could take it from me but I'm not going to cower in a closet, I'm going to protect myself.

Rights aren't dictated by the Government, nor are they created by the Constitution. Rights are from God and are inalienable. PERIOD. The Right to Bear Arms is a God given right, and is not able to be denied by the Government.

There you go. Clarified.

Well said, F34R, well said.

Neezar
12-22-2012, 05:01 AM
http://img0.yardbarker.com/media/0/4/0465c531da052dddc252a39e558aca6f0248dc4d/related/Tennessee_Titans_v_23b6.jpg?stamp=1356151508
Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson has listed the names of every victim of shooting in Newton, Comm. on his cleats for Monday Night’s game.
Prior to Monday Night Football, Johnson tweeted out a photo of his cleats with the message “R.I.P. to all the victims.”
You can see an image of the cleats below.
http://www.yardbarker.com/images/blue_bullet.gif Original Story: http://tireball.com/nfl/2012/12/17/ch... (http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/chris_johnson_has_names_of_shooting_victims_on_sho es_for_mnf/12459100)http://img1.yardbarker.com/images/secret/verified_ybn.gif?stamp=1356151508 (http://www.yardbarker.com/ybn/intro)

Neezar
12-22-2012, 05:06 AM
Dawn Hochsprung, 47: The principal reportedly died while attempting to tackle gunman Adam Lanza as he entered the building shooting. Though she'd only been at Sandy Hook for a few years, she has been described as a "charismatic" and creative (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-principal-and-school-psychologist-went-the-extra-mile.html) administrator who eagerly posted to her Twitter feed about the activities of her students. Speaking about the school to the Newton Bee in 2010, she said, "I don't think you could find a more positive place to bring students to every day."

Mary Sherlach, 56: The school's longtime psychologist also confronted Lanza alongside Hochsprung. Sherlach had plans to retire soon, though her son-in-law said during a Saturday press conference that she had always loved her job: "Mary felt like she was doing God's work, working with the children."


Anne Marie Murphy, 52: Murphy's parents remembered their daughter, a teacher's aide, as "a happy soul. A good mother, wife and daughter. Artistic, fun-loving, witty and hardworking." She reportedly died trying (http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Anne-Marie-Murphy-Died-Shielding-Students-183650631.html) to shield her students from the gunfire.


Lauren Rousseau, 30: Rousseau, who, according to her mother, was having "the best year of her life (http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Lauren-Rousseau-The-best-year-of-her-life-4120850.php)," had just landed a permanent substitute teaching job at the school after working there occasionally for several years.


Victoria Soto, 27: Another teacher, Soto is also being called a hero for trying to save (http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20354861/teacher-victoria-soto-was-one-of-26-victims-killed-by-shooter) the kids in her classroom. Her cousin told Fox NY (http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20354861/teacher-victoria-soto-was-one-of-26-victims-killed-by-shooter#ixzz2FE0Qjj57), "The comfort is knowing that Vicki passed away doing what she loved to do and we're proud to know that and it brings peace to the family to know she was protecting those kids."



Rachel Davino, 29: Davino was a teacher's aide who taught special education students.



Charlotte Bacon, 6: "She was going to go some places in this world," her uncle told Newsday. "This little girl could light up the room for anyone."


Daniel Barden, 7: A "sweet boy" and "budding athlete," Barden was remembered by a friend — a Sandy Hook third-grader — as someone who "likes to play foosball and soccer."


Olivia Engel, 6: "She loved attention," said a family friend. "She had perfect manners, perfect table manners. She was the teacher's pet, the line leader."



Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6: In a Facebook wall post, Marquez-Greene's father wrote, "As much as she's needed here and missed by her mother, brother and me, Ana beat us all to paradise. I love you sweetie girl."



Dylan Hockley, 6: In a note attached to some family photos, Hockley's mother recently wrote to her own mother that her two sons were "no longer babies, their personalities are really shining through the shots now." "They chose that town to live in specifically because the school was so good," the grandmother told The Mail on Sunday. "My daughter told me, 'It’s safe and lovely here Mum.'"



Catherine V. Hubbard, 6: Her parents released this statement: "We are greatly saddened by the loss of our beautiful daughter, Catherine Violet and our thoughts and prayers are with the other families who have been affected by this tragedy. We ask that you continue to pray for us and the other families who have experienced loss in this tragedy."



Chase Kowalski, 7: "You couldn't think of a better child," recalled a neighbor who said Kowalski won his first mini-triatholon last week.


Jesse Lewis, 6: "He was always friendly, he always liked to talk," said (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324481204578181244231543014.html) the manager of a restaurant Lewis's family frequented. "Jesse liked to think up far-fetched scenarios, asking 'What if...' before spinning a hypothetical tale," a family friend remembered.



Emilie Parker, 6: In a Saturday evening press conference, Parker's father described her as "very close" to her two younger sisters: "She was teaching my middle daughter to read. She would help my youngest daughter how to make things, show her how to do crafts." She was "the type of person who could just light up a room," he added. "An incredible person."


Noah Pozner, 6: "When I was his age, I was not like him," Pozner's uncle told Newsday. "Very well brought up. Extremely bright. Extremely bright."


Grace McDonnell, 7: "She was a wonderful little girl. She was always smiling," recalled (http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2012/12/grace_%E2%80%A8mcdonnell_‘girly_girl’) McDonnell's grandmother. "I think everybody should know about these beautiful children whose lives were cut short."


Caroline Previdi, 6: An online memorial has been set up here (http://caroline-previdi.gonetoosoon.org/).


Jessica Rekos, 6: In a statement (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/sunday-coverage-of-newtown-school-shooting/?hp&hp#remembering-jessica-rekos-a-6-year-old-who-was-killed%20) sent to the New York Times, Rekos's family remembered her love of horses and how she'd asked Santa for cowgirl boots and hat. "Jessica was our first born. She started our family, and she was our rock," they wrote of their daughter. "We cannot imagine our life without her."


The other children killed were
Madeleine F. Hsu, 6;
James Mattioli, 6;
Benjamin Wheeler, 6;
Jack Pinto, 6;
Avielle Richman, 6;
Josephine Gay, 7;
and Allison N. Wyatt, 6.

We'll update if and when anyone close to them releases a statement.


Donations to the families of the victims can be made here (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Newtown-Sandy-Hook-Announcement.html?soid=1101979468367&aid=u022UJodt2o).

Neezar
12-22-2012, 05:09 AM
A friend at work said she was talking with her kids about this and saying how sad it was that everyone would remember the shooter's name but no one would remember the kids/victims. Her kids decided to pick one of the victims and do something to remember them.

I like this idea and may have my boys do this. I think I will pick one also.

Bonnie
12-22-2012, 05:20 AM
face it, school shooting aren't a political issue, they are not a gun control issue, they are a moral issue

people are getting high on epsom salts and keyboard dusters for pete's sake, should we ban those?

the fact is, that if people want or are willing to do evil, evil will be found to do. if someone wants to get high, they will find or create a way to get high. I mean who thought up a way to mix ether, sinus pills, fertilizer, drano and a bunch of other nasty stuff then cook it into meth?!?!?! Who first sniffed sharpies long enough to get buzzed? Who smoked incense and told everyone it was synthetic meth?

if adam lansza wanted to kill 20 5 year old kids he would have found a way to do it,


the only thing that would stop an adam lanzsa is a conscience of their own, or the hand of God protecting a people or a nation.

This is the truth...in all these incidences. It's the human hand that wields the weapon, whatever that weapon of choice may be.

BradW
12-22-2012, 01:58 PM
they're silly because they are nonsensical and based on uninformed opinions rather than facts. but you're partially right, I do have an agenda: the rights of the individual; their right to live, enjoy liberty, and pursue happiness. I realize this is difficult for non US citizens to empathize with, and that is rather unfortunate.



you say my opinions are uninformed and not based on fact...
well here are a couple of facts for you to ponder...the USA has more gun related deaths per year then the next 22 wealthy countries combined,and you manage to do this with nearly half the population of those 22 countries..

so saying your liberal gun laws have no bearing in the matter would be in my eyes anyway...a wee bit silly to believe.

adamt
12-22-2012, 02:11 PM
you say my opinions are uninformed and not based on fact...
well here are a couple of facts for you to ponder...the USA has more gun related deaths per year then the next 22 wealthy countries combined,and you manage to do this with nearly half the population of those 22 countries..

so saying your liberal gun laws have no bearing in the matter would be in my eyes anyway...a wee bit silly to believe.

brad, in all seriousness and respect, i sincerely would like a source for this

NateR
12-22-2012, 02:18 PM
U guys are saying owning a gun is a god given right .... Please clarify for me .... No joke ... Not even being an ass ... Did god write your constitution? Does it say in the bible that guns are a right?

The Bible very much affirms personal property rights and a person's ability to defend themselves and their family from harm. In Biblical times, this was done with weapons like swords.

Jesus even instructed His disciples that it was time for them to buy swords just before He was crucified:

Luke 22:36
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

The sword was for personal protection because Christ knew that life for His followers was going to get much more difficult once He left them. Of course, a sword isn't going to do much good these days; so we can infer that, if Jesus was giving this command today, then He would be instructing His disciples to buy guns.

The Constitution merely guarantees our right to own guns for self-defense, which includes a citizen's right to defend his/herself against their own government.

Of course the Constitution doesn't specifically say, "everyone has a right to own a gun for self defense;" but it didn't need to back in 1791. However, we're not going to find that answer in American law, we actually have to go to British law. In the 1689 Declaration of Rights, the King stated that "the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by law." By 1744, British law stated that "a man may keep a gun for the defense of his house and family."

So, even the "tyrant" Kings of England understood the necessity of owning guns for self-defense. Thus, the authors of the Constitution didn't need to state that we have a right to own guns for self-defense, they just needed to state that the existing right to own guns for self-defense wouldn't be infringed upon.

NateR
12-22-2012, 02:20 PM
you say my opinions are uninformed and not based on fact...
well here are a couple of facts for you to ponder...the USA has more gun related deaths per year then the next 22 wealthy countries combined,and you manage to do this with nearly half the population of those 22 countries..

You need to provide reliable source for a statement like that one.

F34R
12-22-2012, 02:43 PM
you say my opinions are uninformed and not based on fact...
well here are a couple of facts for you to ponder...the USA has more gun related deaths per year then the next 22 wealthy countries combined,and you manage to do this with nearly half the population of those 22 countries..

so saying your liberal gun laws have no bearing in the matter would be in my eyes anyway...a wee bit silly to believe.

Of course, you haven't posted any source for that. :rolleyes:

huan
12-22-2012, 03:50 PM
seriously, the anti-gun crowd has to be walking around with a serious case of hemorrhoids, because those numbers have to hurt when you pull them out. I've heard that figure quoted before, most recently by a congressman (D) -- what a surprise! In actuality the numbers most often quoted stem from some data in 2003 before the assault weapon ban expired. wow, how very convenient!

most recent data (2009) by CDC cites 3.7 homicides per 100k. 60% of those are suicides. firearm injuries and firearm homicides have decreased every year since the expiration of the AWB. you're also 25x more likely to die from exposure to smoke than killing yourself with one of your big scary guns. we should ban fireplaces!

huan
12-22-2012, 05:16 PM
everyone should watch this:

The History, Philosophy and Ethics of Gun Control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sFMUeUErYVg

relevant:
“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” -- economist John Lott

BradW
12-22-2012, 08:46 PM
You need to provide reliable source for a statement like that one.
i took a quick look for the article i read but i cant seem to remember where i read it but i will find it and post it.

im kinda busy for a couple of days getting ready for Christmas so i will get back to you with the source as soon as i can...be patient boys...it really is out there.

BradW
12-22-2012, 10:01 PM
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/


this isnt the article that i read but it kinda says the same thing...ill keep looking for the other one and post it when i get a chance.

Neezar
12-22-2012, 10:56 PM
I wonder if the firearm related deaths in other countries are that much lower because of strict gun laws or because of availiability?

Play The Man
12-22-2012, 11:41 PM
I wonder if the firearm related deaths in other countries are that much lower because of strict gun laws or because of availiability?

No. It is race. Our inner cities are populated with black and Hispanic populations with a big gang problem. If you compare apples to apples, so to speak, our European-American statistics are in the same ballpark as the others. Not very politically correct; but the truth often isn't. The high stats reflect inner city gang bangers shooting each other over turf wars.
In addition, guns are used in a large percentage of suicides. If guns were unavailable these people would likely just take pills or run their car in a closed garage. They would still kill themselves. Adding in the suicides makes the stats look worse. In Europe, they have the doctor do it. Less messy. :wink: Plus, it makes them feel morally superior.

Neezar
12-23-2012, 02:44 AM
And I wonder how many of those are committed by people who are not US citizens.

:laugh:

adamt
12-23-2012, 03:15 AM
No. It is race. Our inner cities are populated with black and Hispanic populations with a big gang problem. If you compare apples to apples, so to speak, our European-American statistics are in the same ballpark as the others. Not very politically correct; but the truth often isn't. The high stats reflect inner city gang bangers shooting each other over turf wars.
In addition, guns are used in a large percentage of suicides. If guns were unavailable these people would likely just take pills or run their car in a closed garage. They would still kill themselves. Adding in the suicides makes the stats look worse. In Europe, they have the doctor do it. Less messy. :wink: Plus, it makes them feel morally superior.

we need a like button on the forums

adamt
12-23-2012, 03:18 AM
someone is going to have to help me understand this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcNCurZDjr0

NateR
12-23-2012, 03:18 AM
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/


this isnt the article that i read but it kinda says the same thing...ill keep looking for the other one and post it when i get a chance.

The guy rating the statistic as "mostly true" doesn't seem all that convinced himself. However, unless they distinguish between crimes committed by illegally-owned firearms and crimes committed by legally-owned firearms, then the statistic seems intentionally misleading.

Plus, as PTM stated, including suicide statistics is definitely misleading.

The question here is, "does LEGAL gun ownership increase the crime rate?" I say no. I believe it has just the opposite effect.

Tyburn
12-23-2012, 09:37 AM
Did god write your constitution?

It is supposed to be pretty much the perfect blue print Biblically speaking on a method to run a State. It is supposed to be pretty much timeless and perfect in its construction.

The two problems I have with it are its exclusion of The Divine Right of Kingship, which The Bible actually makes explicit is a GOD-Given...and not GOD infered Right. Although GOD may have been hesitant about a Monarchy, when he gave his anointing to it...well...thats one of the few political rights set in stone from a biblical perspective...and one completely excluded by the constitution.

When Christ returns some Americans will say he is a Dictator...well, obviously, He wont come with a parliament and a congress, he wont come with a senate, a house of representatives, a house of Lords....he wont be "ellected" He will be a King, and it will be his ways, or Judgement. He will be completely at odds with the notion of any Freedom that isnt "Freedom UNDER Him" Now as the Heavens run on the principle of Monarchy, where GOD is King...I would say to deny the populas a Monarch, is to write out a GOD GIVEN RIGHT written far more plainly and demonstrated many more times in scripture, then the amendment that one should arm ones self...and that doing that is a GOD given Right...personally...I think that if that was something truely beleived by the Apsotlate, then they wouldnt have been martyred....you didnt find Stephen throwing rocks back at those who beat him to death...you didnt find Paul using his sword against the Romans who beheaded him....infact...when a sword was drawn to protect Christ, and to prevent his arrest...Jesus told the disciple to put it away, and healed the wound inflicted....you have to ask yourselves if the amendment in the first place to ignore these things is out of anything but fear. My Suggestion is that the americans who inshrined this in law were very, very frightened...this was a response from the fear of having seen what happened in Europe

The thing is...the world moves on. Germany has Europe under a peaceful diplomatic packt...no blood was shed...but a similar result to Hitlers ambitions. The Federal Government has grown slowly obease until all states now depend upon it....No blood shed since the civil war...IMHO it wasnt just the south that lost...that was the day all american people lost to BIG Government...good luck in reversing the tendrils of that great oaf that is Washington DC

It should be said though...that Monarchy was deliberately excluded, in part, due to how badly some of those annointed had acted upon their own populas. The Evil acts of some of the Reformation Monarchs were so horrific that the Constitution was designed to stop a Soverign acting in such a manner...yet in the wake of gained Independance, George Washington was entertained by thoughts of establishing a monarchy entrusted by the people, he rejected the notion, which left the door open for a constitution.

The Second problem I have is "Amendments" Noone has yet explained to me why an original document would need to be ammended. When most Americans talk about their rights under constitution, they kinda quote from sections not original...but changed, ammended. Noone has yet told me how, or why you can do that to a document such as the one in existance...nor...consequently, what stops it being changed further on the whim of a political tyrant.

Finally...the electoral college of the US is absolutely ludicrus, money buys presidencies, and behind the scenes points seem to keep them their. They have destroyed their Supreme Court by making it dependant on a Federal System entirely at odds now with its constitutional basis, for the sake of money, meaning the Supreme Court will no longer go against the legislative process, nor the executive, should it limit them on funds...we saw that when the rulled against the constitution on the health care reform.

The American people are thus, from a constitutionalistic perspective, already in bondage, and the Tyrant, is the Federal Government, that basically needs to be put back into a box opened during the civil war. But ive yet to see any rebellion about that, armed, or not.

In many ways...the constitution is already becoming a mythical standard, less and less relivent, and along with it notions of obvious Tyrany, replaced by a dissolutioned, and dessensitized structure of Government, simply accepted as the Norm, when its not.

Finally, the true way of reading must stem from context. Dont take the Constitution out of the 1700s when you read, and understand the Zeitgiest of the times...to many people dont understand what it means by "Freedom" Nor "Freedom of Religion" because it doesnt mean what is on display at the moment. It has NOTHING to do with anything but an established Church and Christianity.

What America has tried to do is take the very best bits of Europe, which was its heriatage, and take steps to stop Europes worst bits from developing. The result of that was the Constitution. It worked well until the Civil War. Heaven only knows what George Washington would think if he saw whats happened to the Federal Government post Abraham Lincoln....No doubt he would be bartering with the Federal Government in much the same way he did with England, No Doubt they would refuse his changes in much the same way England did....No doubt he would want to do EXACTLY what happened in the Civil War...he would wish to claim independance from the Federation due to its swollen and obease state.

No State would dare. Not even Texas, who likes to threaten, but ultimately, they are all too reliant on the Federal Government, its money, its wealth, its power, its protection. Where the hell are their State Governments...thats what I want to know.

BradW
12-23-2012, 02:31 PM
someone is going to have to help me understand this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcNCurZDjr0

i haven't seen that clip before but i did watch the guy make his statement

on Saturday only one day after his daughter lost her life and he came across

a bit pretentious in my eyes...not sure whats up with him.

wavetar
12-23-2012, 02:57 PM
Wow. Up until this point in my 42-year old life, I really, honestly had no concept of how fundamentally different American culture is from Canadian, or Anglo-European. On the surface they appear much the same, but underneath, at the roots...not at all. I guess I need to frequent political forums a little more.

Anyway, we're 17 pages in, and it's playing out much like it is in society at large. Two sides are pointing fingers, accomplishing nothing, doing selective readings of both bible and statistics to prop up their beliefs and agendas when in fact the argument at hand is completely inconsequential to the actual problem. This is not a gun control issue, at least not at this point because that horse left the barn a long time ago.

The problem is the state of American society today not only allows this sort of thing to happen, but seemingly propagates it. And it's snowballing. Much like an addict at an intervention, the first step has to be an admission that there is a problem, by all sides. Only then, by everyone working together with political posturing and crowing aside, can real solutions be decided upon & implemented. Continue to ignore the real issues while focusing on (in comparison) trivial arguments, and that snowball I mentioned is only getting bigger and gaining momentum.

Don't choose a side, don't hide behind a political agenda, don't shift responsibility, don't place blame, don't accept that these tragedies are the cost of freedom...don't talk...act...act as one and prove that you are ONE Nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE.

F34R
12-23-2012, 03:26 PM
Wow. Up until this point in my 42-year old life, I really, honestly had no concept of how fundamentally different American culture is from Canadian, or Anglo-European. On the surface they appear much the same, but underneath, at the roots...not at all. I guess I need to frequent political forums a little more.

Anyway, we're 17 pages in, and it's playing out much like it is in society at large. Two sides are pointing fingers, accomplishing nothing, doing selective readings of both bible and statistics to prop up their beliefs and agendas when in fact the argument at hand is completely inconsequential to the actual problem. This is not a gun control issue, at least not at this point because that horse left the barn a long time ago.

The problem is the state of American society today not only allows this sort of thing to happen, but seemingly propagates it. And it's snowballing. Much like an addict at an intervention, the first step has to be an admission that there is a problem, by all sides. Only then, by everyone working together with political posturing and crowing aside, can real solutions be decided upon & implemented. Continue to ignore the real issues while focusing on (in comparison) trivial arguments, and that snowball I mentioned is only getting bigger and gaining momentum.

Don't choose a side, don't hide behind a political agenda, don't shift responsibility, don't place blame, don't accept that these tragedies are the cost of freedom...don't talk...act...act as one and prove that you are ONE Nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE.

A lot of Americans do this, daily... our government doesn't. Specifically, I don't have an ounce of my being involved in politics, shifting responsibility, nor do I blame others for things they don't do. Tragedies are a cost of life. I don't rely on talking, I act, period.

I just can't understand things that others do... one in particular; our President.

How, after four years, does he come on tv after a shooting, and claim that the majority of Americans want guns gone? How does he NOT know, or not care about, how things he wants to say that won't actually help anything that it's being promoted to fix?

All the data over the past hundreds of years is there. People that actually think about, research, etc., these things have presented this information to others, kinda like the articles posted here, etc., yet that information isn't used properly by the people we elected to do what is best for US, not them.

NateR
12-23-2012, 07:28 PM
Wow. Up until this point in my 42-year old life, I really, honestly had no concept of how fundamentally different American culture is from Canadian, or Anglo-European. On the surface they appear much the same, but underneath, at the roots...not at all. I guess I need to frequent political forums a little more.

Anyway, we're 17 pages in, and it's playing out much like it is in society at large. Two sides are pointing fingers, accomplishing nothing, doing selective readings of both bible and statistics to prop up their beliefs and agendas when in fact the argument at hand is completely inconsequential to the actual problem. This is not a gun control issue, at least not at this point because that horse left the barn a long time ago.

The problem is the state of American society today not only allows this sort of thing to happen, but seemingly propagates it. And it's snowballing. Much like an addict at an intervention, the first step has to be an admission that there is a problem, by all sides. Only then, by everyone working together with political posturing and crowing aside, can real solutions be decided upon & implemented. Continue to ignore the real issues while focusing on (in comparison) trivial arguments, and that snowball I mentioned is only getting bigger and gaining momentum.

Don't choose a side, don't hide behind a political agenda, don't shift responsibility, don't place blame, don't accept that these tragedies are the cost of freedom...don't talk...act...act as one and prove that you are ONE Nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE.

Hmmm, sanctimonious much?

The anti-gun crowd (in the media - not referring to specific people in this thread) has been attempting to capitalize on this tragedy to advance their own agenda right from the very start. If you don't approve of us arguing in defense of our freedoms, then that's your problem. I'm not going to apologize for it.

To jump into the middle of a conversation and act like you are the lone voice of reason trying to placate fighting toddlers is the ultimate in arrogance. So go back and read the ENTIRE thread from start to finish and then decide if you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation. If you still feel that the conversation is somehow beneath you after all that, then don't post in this thread again.

We know what the real issue is: We live in a fallen and corrupted world that is ruled by Satan. Evil is a very real thing in this world and it will continue to be until Christ's return. That's why bad things happen to good people, but even that statement is not entirely accurate, because the Bible is clear that there is no such things as a good person. The only exception to that being Jesus Christ, of course.

In church this morning, our pastor addressed the tragedy in Connecticut and told us of a similar event that is tied in with the Christmas story. Matthew 2:16-18 talks of all the young male children who were massacred in Bethlehem by order of King Herod in an attempt to kill Jesus shortly after His birth. The soldiers were ordered to kill any male child ages 2 and under. Not only did GOD allow that to happen, He told the prophet Jeremiah that it would happen hundreds of years before Christ was born. So the seemingly senseless slaughter of young children was a small part of the plan of salvation from the very beginning.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure not a single kid was killed in Bethlehem by an "assault rifle" on that night. So the problem is not guns, the problem is human nature. We are hopelessly evil, every single one of us, and there is nothing we can do about it. That's why we need Jesus.

Bonnie
12-24-2012, 12:24 AM
Wow. Up until this point in my 42-year old life, I really, honestly had no concept of how fundamentally different American culture is from Canadian, or Anglo-European. On the surface they appear much the same, but underneath, at the roots...not at all. I guess I need to frequent political forums a little more.

Anyway, we're 17 pages in, and it's playing out much like it is in society at large. Two sides are pointing fingers, accomplishing nothing, doing selective readings of both bible and statistics to prop up their beliefs and agendas when in fact the argument at hand is completely inconsequential to the actual problem. This is not a gun control issue, at least not at this point because that horse left the barn a long time ago.

The problem is the state of American society today not only allows this sort of thing to happen, but seemingly propagates it. And it's snowballing. Much like an addict at an intervention, the first step has to be an admission that there is a problem, by all sides. Only then, by everyone working together with political posturing and crowing aside, can real solutions be decided upon & implemented. Continue to ignore the real issues while focusing on (in comparison) trivial arguments, and that snowball I mentioned is only getting bigger and gaining momentum.

Don't choose a side, don't hide behind a political agenda, don't shift responsibility, don't place blame, don't accept that these tragedies are the cost of freedom...don't talk...act...act as one and prove that you are ONE Nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE.

How does American society "allow" this sort of thing to happen exactly?

wavetar
12-24-2012, 12:32 AM
Hmmm, sanctimonious much?

The anti-gun crowd (in the media - not referring to specific people in this thread) has been attempting to capitalize on this tragedy to advance their own agenda right from the very start. If you don't approve of us arguing in defense of our freedoms, then that's your problem. I'm not going to apologize for it.

To jump into the middle of a conversation and act like you are the lone voice of reason trying to placate fighting toddlers is the ultimate in arrogance. So go back and read the ENTIRE thread from start to finish and then decide if you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation. If you still feel that the conversation is somehow beneath you after all that, then don't post in this thread again.

We know what the real issue is: We live in a fallen and corrupted world that is ruled by Satan. Evil is a very real thing in this world and it will continue to be until Christ's return. That's why bad things happen to good people, but even that statement is not entirely accurate, because the Bible is clear that there is no such things as a good person. The only exception to that being Jesus Christ, of course.

In church this morning, our pastor addressed the tragedy in Connecticut and told us of a similar event that is tied in with the Christmas story. Matthew 2:16-18 talks of all the young male children who were massacred in Bethlehem by order of King Herod in an attempt to kill Jesus shortly after His birth. The soldiers were ordered to kill any male child ages 2 and under. Not only did GOD allow that to happen, He told the prophet Jeremiah that it would happen hundreds of years before Christ was born. So the seemingly senseless slaughter of young children was a small part of the plan of salvation from the very beginning.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure not a single kid was killed in Bethlehem by an "assault rifle" on that night. So the problem is not guns, the problem is human nature. We are hopelessly evil, every single one of us, and there is nothing we can do about it. That's why we need Jesus.

You respond as if I'm talking directly to you, which I clearly am not. I have read the entire thread, and have posted 3 or 4 times in it, so it's not like I suddenly jumped in. I'm not presenting a pro or anti stance on the gun issue, simply pointing out it's really more of a side bar that's deflecting attention (not solely in this thread, but in the public domain as well) from the many socioeconomic issues causing the decline of a great country. I don't recall asking for an apology from you or anyone else. If by "adding anything intelligent to the conversation", you mean jumping down the throat of someone who either doesn't share your beliefs or offers a different point of view, then no, clearly I have nothing to offer in that regard.

rearnakedchoke
12-24-2012, 02:35 AM
We Americans (at least, the ones who are constitutionalists) believe our rights are God-given. It is a belief, RNC. Like faith. Those God-given rights in which we believe are confirmed by our Constitution.

You shouldn't belittle us and our Constitution, which we cherish, by asking if "God wrote it" or if it says "in the bible that guns are a right". You are very disrespectful to ask for clarification and claim you aren't joking while making those two statements ridiculing our beliefs. We don't ask that you accept them, they are ours. Please respect that.

come on flo ... i am not ridiculing you ... i am saying, i have been on here for a while now, and between here and the christianity section, it has been said that all things from god is biblical or can be found in the bible, ie homosexuality is wrong, gay marriage is wrong etc .. because it is in the bible ... that is why i am asking about the constitution and the bible ... are all the rights in there traceable to the bible??? i mean, as a canadian i can say that universal health care is my god given right ... i mean, i can say that all i want, but i doubt i can find any biblical sense to say it is god given .. nate provided a quote about jesus asking for people to get swords ... but jesus also said he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword when one of his apostles was seemingly defending jesus ...

Bonnie
12-24-2012, 03:10 AM
I didn't think you were being sanctimonious, Wavetar, but I did have that ? about one of the things you said. :)

How is American society allowing for these things to happen? Who knew Adam Lanza was a killer until he killed?

Neezar
12-24-2012, 04:49 AM
The guy rating the statistic as "mostly true" doesn't seem all that convinced himself. However, unless they distinguish between crimes committed by illegally-owned firearms and crimes committed by legally-owned firearms, then the statistic seems intentionally misleading.

Plus, as PTM stated, including suicide statistics is definitely misleading.

The question here is, "does LEGAL gun ownership increase the crime rate?" I say no. I believe it has just the opposite effect.

Well maybe I'm missing something but everywhere I actually find reported stats to look at, the years of the stats reported are different. Like on one the numbers from the US are posted from 2010 and some of the other countries are reports from as early as 2003. :unsure-1: That doesn't really seem fair.

Neezar
12-24-2012, 04:59 AM
Wow. Up until this point in my 42-year old life, I really, honestly had no concept of how fundamentally different American culture is from Canadian, or Anglo-European. On the surface they appear much the same, but underneath, at the roots...not at all. I guess I need to frequent political forums a little more.

Anyway, we're 17 pages in, and it's playing out much like it is in society at large. Two sides are pointing fingers, accomplishing nothing, doing selective readings of both bible and statistics to prop up their beliefs and agendas when in fact the argument at hand is completely inconsequential to the actual problem. This is not a gun control issue, at least not at this point because that horse left the barn a long time ago.

The problem is the state of American society today not only allows this sort of thing to happen, but seemingly propagates it. And it's snowballing. Much like an addict at an intervention, the first step has to be an admission that there is a problem, by all sides. Only then, by everyone working together with political posturing and crowing aside, can real solutions be decided upon & implemented. Continue to ignore the real issues while focusing on (in comparison) trivial arguments, and that snowball I mentioned is only getting bigger and gaining momentum.

Don't choose a side, don't hide behind a political agenda, don't shift responsibility, don't place blame, don't accept that these tragedies are the cost of freedom...don't talk...act...act as one and prove that you are ONE Nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE.

Any suggestions on those real solutions?

Neezar
12-24-2012, 05:00 AM
A friend at work said she was talking with her kids about this and saying how sad it was that everyone would remember the shooter's name but no one would remember the kids/victims. Her kids decided to pick one of the victims and do something to remember them.

I like this idea and may have my boys do this. I think I will pick one also.

I'm going to pick Benjamin Wheeler. :)

F34R
12-24-2012, 05:16 AM
come on flo ... i am not ridiculing you ... i am saying, i have been on here for a while now, and between here and the christianity section, it has been said that all things from god is biblical or can be found in the bible, ie homosexuality is wrong, gay marriage is wrong etc .. because it is in the bible ... that is why i am asking about the constitution and the bible ... are all the rights in there traceable to the bible??? i mean, as a canadian i can say that universal health care is my god given right ... i mean, i can say that all i want, but i doubt i can find any biblical sense to say it is god given .. nate provided a quote about jesus asking for people to get swords ... but jesus also said he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword when one of his apostles was seemingly defending jesus ...

I already explained it quite clearly...

The Constitution isn't necessarily something from the bible. The Bill of Rights is included so that the Government understands that they aren't able to "take away" rights given by God. I'm not sure why you don't understand that concept.

Bonnie
12-24-2012, 08:05 AM
I'm going to pick Benjamin Wheeler. :)


Do you know what you want to do to remember him? :)


I read this in an article where his grandma and grandpa were sharing things about Ben:

"He always blew us kisses and he would say 'Catch it and put it in your heart,'" she said. :)

NateR
12-24-2012, 10:32 AM
I already explained it quite clearly...

The Constitution isn't necessarily something from the bible. The Bill of Rights is included so that the Government understands that they aren't able to "take away" rights given by God. I'm not sure why you don't understand that concept.

That's exactly it. The original philosophy behind American government was that GOD is the source of all human rights. Thus no human government or leader had the authority to take those rights away for ANY reason. Government works best when it is subject to the will of the people and those people are subject to the will of GOD.

If government is the source of human rights, then government can take those rights away anytime it wants to. Thus, the people become nothing more than subjects of the government. That's the recipe for tyranny.

TexasRN
12-24-2012, 11:56 AM
I'm going to pick Benjamin Wheeler. :)


That's really nice of you and your boys to do this. I was reading in my local newspaper about all of the toys and money being donated to the town. There is a general store there that was receiving phone calls from people all over the country who were giving their credit card numbers to pay for the next $500 of groceries, and one paid for a much higher amount. The outpouring of love on this town just goes to show that there are still good people in the world.

I wonder sometimes about how our world today compares to the world just prior to the flood. God looked over the world and found only Noah and his family worthy of saving. What does He see when he looks at us now? I'd like to think He sees people who are flawed but who are still trying their best to show love and kindness.


~Amy

Neezar
12-24-2012, 05:18 PM
Do you know what you want to do to remember him? :)


I read this in an article where his grandma and grandpa were sharing things about Ben:

:)
Thank you for sharing that Bonnie. :)

F34R
12-24-2012, 09:26 PM
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
It's a decently long read, but well worth the time.

Here's the end conclusion:

In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.

Tyburn
12-24-2012, 10:04 PM
:)

Tyburn
12-24-2012, 10:10 PM
You have NO GOD-Given Rights. Everything, EVERYTHING extended to you by the Almighty is an absolute gift. How DARE you think that He OWES you anything!?

You are a Sinner. You do NOT have the "GOD-Given" Right to have a Firearm. You have NO GOD Given Rights Period. You do NOT measure up to His Law. You have NO power to barter with Christ.

He Commands. You Follow. Its about as simple as that...and if you err from His Ways...well, Frankly...its your funneral

Play The Man
12-24-2012, 10:36 PM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ever-381367-christmas-century.html

Mark Steyn: Vain search for meaning in massacre
The infanticidal maniac of Sandy Hook was merely conscripting grade-school extras for a hollow, hyper-narcissistic act of public suicide.


By MARK STEYN

"Lullay, Thou little tiny Child
By by, lully, lullay..."

The 16th-century Coventry Carol, a mother's lament for her lost son, is the only song of the season about the other children of Christmas – the first-born of Bethlehem, slaughtered on Herod's orders after the Magi brought him the not-so-glad tidings that an infant of that city would grow up to be King of the Jews. As Matthew tells it, even in a story of miraculous birth, in the midst of life is death. The Massacre of the Innocents loomed large over the Christian imagination: in Rubens' two renderings, he fills the canvas with spear-wielding killers, wailing mothers and dead babies, a snapshot, one assumes, of the vaster, bloodier body count beyond the frame. Then a century ago the Catholic Encyclopedia started digging into the numbers. The estimated population of Bethlehem at that time was around a thousand, which would put the toll of first-born sons under the age of 2 murdered by King Herod at approximately 20 – or about the same number of dead children as one school shooting on a December morning in Connecticut. "Every man a king," promised Huey Long. And, if it doesn't quite work out like that, well, every man his own Herod.
Had my child been among the dead of Dec. 14, I don't know that I would ever again trust the contours of the world. The years go by, and you're sitting in a coffee shop with a neighbor, and out of the corner of your eye a guy walks in who looks a little goofy and is maybe muttering to himself: Is he just a harmless oddball – or the prelude to horror? The bedrock of life has been shattered, and ever after you're walking on a wobbling carpet with nothing underneath. For a parent to bury a child offends against the natural order – at least in an age that has conquered childhood mortality. For a parent to bury a child at Christmas taints the day forever, and mocks its meaning.
For those untouched by death this Christmas, someone else's bewildering, shattering turn of fate ought to occasion a little modesty and circumspection. Instead, even by its usual execrable standards, the public discourse post-Newtown has been stupid and contemptible. The Left now seizes on every atrocity as a cudgel to beat whatever happens to be the Right's current hottest brand: Tucson, Arizona, was something to do with Sarah Palin's use of metaphor and other common literary devices – or "toxic rhetoric," as Paul Krugman put it; Aurora, Colorado, was something to do with the Tea Party, according to Brian Ross of ABC News. Since the humiliations of November, the Right no longer has any hot brands, so this time round the biens pensants have fallen back on "gun culture." Dimwit hacks bandy terms like "assault weapon," "assault rifle," "semi-automatic" and "automatic weapon" in endlessly interchangeable but ever more terrifying accumulations of high-tech state-of-the-art killing power. As the comedian Andy Borowitz tweeted, "When the 2nd Amendment was written the most lethal gun available was the musket."
Actually, the semiautomatic is a 19th century technology, first produced in 1885. That's just under half-a-century after the death of Madison, the Second Amendment's author, and rather nearer to the Founding Fathers' time than our own. And the founders were under fewer illusions about the fragility of society than Hollywood funnymen: on July 25, 1764, four Lenape Indians walked into a one-room schoolhouse in colonial Pennsylvania and killed Enoch Brown and ten of his pupils. One child survived, scalped and demented to the end of his days.
Nor am I persuaded by the Right's emphasis on pre-emptive mental-health care. It's true that, if your first reaction on hearing breaking news of this kind is to assume the perpetrator is a male dweeb in his early twenties with poor socialization skills, you're unlikely to be wrong. But, in a society with ever fewer behavioral norms, who's to say what's odd? On 9/11, the agent at the check-in desk reckoned Mohammed Atta and his chums were a bit strange but banished the thought as shameful and discriminatory. In a politically correct world, vigilance is a fool's errand. The US Airways cabin crew who got the "flying imams" bounced from a Minneapolis plane for flamboyantly, intimidatingly wacky behavior (praying loudly, fanning out to occupy all the exit rows, asking for seatbelt extenders they didn't need) wound up in sensitivity-training hell. If a lesbian thinks dragging your wife around in a head-to-toe body-bag is kinda weird, she's being "Islamophobic." If a Muslim thinks taking breast hormones and amputating your penis is a little off, he's "transphobic." These very terms make the point that, in our society, finding somebody else odd is itself a form of mental illness. In an unmoored age, what's not odd? Once upon a time, TV viewers from distant states descending on a Connecticut town to attend multiple funerals of children they don't know might have struck some of us as, at best, unseemly and, at worst, deeply creepy – a Feast of the Holy Innocents, so to speak.
OK, what about restricting it to wishing murderous ill upon someone? In her own response to the Sandy Hook slaughter, the novelist Joyce Carol Oates tweeted that hopes for gun control would be greatly advanced "if sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims." Who's to know when violent fantasies on social media prefigure a loner getting ready to mow down the kindergarten or just a critically acclaimed liberal novelist amusing her friends before the PEN Awards cocktail party? As it is, in American schools, mental-health referral for "oppositional defiance disorder" and the like is a bureaucratic coding racket designed to access federal gravy. Absent widely accepted cultural enforcers, any legislative reforms would quickly decay into just another capricious boondoggle.
It would not be imprudent to expect that an ever-broker America, with more divorce, fewer fathers, the abolition of almost all social restraints and a revoltingly desensitized culture, will produce more young men who fall through the cracks. But, in the face of murder as extraordinarily wicked as that of Newtown, we should know enough to pause before reaching for our usual tired tropes. So I will save my own personal theories, no doubt as ignorant and irrelevant as everybody else's, until after Christmas – except to note that the media's stampede for meaning in massacre this past week overlooks the obvious: that the central meaning of these acts is that they are without meaning. Herod and the Pennsylvania Indians murdered children in pursuit of crude political goals; the infanticidal maniac of Sandy Hook was merely conscripting grade-school extras for a hollow act of public suicide. Like most mass shootings, his was an exercise in hyper-narcissism – 19th century technology in the service of a very contemporary sensibility.
Meanwhile, the atheists have put up a new poster in Times Square: Underneath a picture of Santa, "Keep the Merry"; underneath a picture of Christ, "Dump the Myth." But in our time even Christians have dumped a lot of the myth while keeping the merry: Jesus, lambs, shepherds, yes; the slaughtered innocents of Bethlehem, kind of a downer. If the Christmas story is a myth, it's a perfectly constructed one, rooting the Savior's divinity in the miracle of His birth but unblinkered, in Matthew's account of Herod's response, about man's darker impulses:
"Then woe is me
Poor Child, for Thee
And ever mourn and may
For Thy parting
Nor say nor sing
By by, lully, lullay."

NateR
12-25-2012, 12:33 AM
You have NO GOD-Given Rights. Everything, EVERYTHING extended to you by the Almighty is an absolute gift. How DARE you think that He OWES you anything!?

You are a Sinner. You do NOT have the "GOD-Given" Right to have a Firearm. You have NO GOD Given Rights Period. You do NOT measure up to His Law. You have NO power to barter with Christ.

He Commands. You Follow. Its about as simple as that...and if you err from His Ways...well, Frankly...its your funneral

Well, congrats on totally missing the point. :laugh:

Nobody is saying that GOD owes us anything. We are simply saying that the government has no authority to take away rights that GOD has granted. GOD can take those rights (or our lives) away anytime He wants and the Bible is pretty clear that He often does; but that's His prerogative, not the government's.

rearnakedchoke
12-25-2012, 01:39 AM
My prayers are with the families during the christmas season ... Anytime is going to be tough for this ... But parents are probably going to hurt more at this time of the year .... Very sad

Play The Man
12-25-2012, 07:22 AM
My prayers are with the families during the christmas season ... Anytime is going to be tough for this ... But parents are probably going to hurt more at this time of the year .... Very sad

Amen

Tyburn
12-25-2012, 08:49 AM
no authority to take away rights that GOD has granted. .

No where, outside of a man made constitution does it say the right to bear arms is a GOD given right in the first place. Thats the whole point from a non-US perspective.

We dont believe GOD Granted you that as a Right...we believe the Federal Government of the US Circa 1780s Granted you that right.

Its a bit like us trying to claim our Government is violating the Magna Carte or something...those arent GOD Given Rights...just rights the barons felt they deserved vs the Monarchy.

Tyburn
12-25-2012, 08:50 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ever-381367-christmas-century.html

Try this :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUFQoNW7NPs

NateR
12-25-2012, 03:28 PM
No where, outside of a man made constitution does it say the right to bear arms is a GOD given right in the first place. Thats the whole point from a non-US perspective.

We dont believe GOD Granted you that as a Right...we believe the Federal Government of the US Circa 1780s Granted you that right.

Its a bit like us trying to claim our Government is violating the Magna Carte or something...those arent GOD Given Rights...just rights the barons felt they deserved vs the Monarchy.

People have the GOD-given right to protect their family and their property from harm. In order to do that in this world, you need to be armed.

Did you not read the part where I stated that the right to own firearms for protection was granted by the King of England as far back as 1689?

So, you can believe whatever you want about the source of our right to own firearms, but all you are doing is revealing yourself to be ignorant of your own nation's history.

huan
12-25-2012, 06:08 PM
No where, outside of a man made constitution does it say the right to bear arms is a GOD given right in the first place. Thats the whole point from a non-US perspective.

We dont believe GOD Granted you that as a Right...we believe the Federal Government of the US Circa 1780s Granted you that right.

Its a bit like us trying to claim our Government is violating the Magna Carte or something...those arent GOD Given Rights...just rights the barons felt they deserved vs the Monarchy.

it doesn't matter what you believe, you do not understand U.S. government and the philosophy behind its founding if you think our government is the body granting ANY rights. founding documents are merely a reflection that those rights have always existed and are laws of nature, which are self-evident. government's role is intended to be nothing more than protection of the citizen and their individual rights, which obviously includes protection from governing bodies.

it makes me kind of sad really, that you think rights are granted from government. but I guess that's why when your government came knocking for guns no one put up any kind of a meaningful resistance.

Tyburn
12-25-2012, 09:13 PM
People have the GOD-given right to protect their family and their property from harm. In order to do that in this world, you need to be armed.

Did you not read the part where I stated that the right to own firearms for protection was granted by the King of England as far back as 1689?

So, you can believe whatever you want about the source of our right to own firearms, but all you are doing is revealing yourself to be ignorant of your own nation's history.

The King of England is not a God, anymore then your founding Fathers are Gods...both may grant you rights UNDER THE LAW...but that doesnt mean the Law They give you...or the Rights in those laws are from GOD...anymore then any politicians opinions on what should and shouldnt be rights

GOD never says in plain English that you have a right to protect your family. You can INFER it, by saying that the Mans role is to lead the family and protect it, and therefore you need a firearm to be able to perform that function...but that is YOUR inference...your OPINION...its not a black and white solid "Right" Besides...giving Job a gun to protect his family wouldnt have made him any more successful would it now? You have one verse asking missionaries to by swords...and yet every time they draw those Swords, Christ tells them to quit it...and if you check your History...you find they were all Martyred...which wasnt an accident.

GOD makes no Rights...thats why he makes Promises for things that are important, but that we are not afforded by Rights. Salvation, for example. That is an ESSENTIAL BIBLICAL TRUTH...particularly, for someone, like you, who did a U-Tern on Calvinism...My Goodness...if we all had "Rights" then we wouldnt need to be "Ellected" because our Sin wouldnt stop us...after all, the Law would have given us Rights, and we would be Righteous.

We're Not.

You have NO GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS...you dont even have the right to your own life. WTF do you think St Paul means when he talks about being a "Slave for Christ" St Paul was a Roman Citizen...do you know what Roman Slaves were? You were perchased, at no small cost. Something a lot of Evangelical Christians forget about. Salvation ISNT FREE...its only Free for you. The Debt was still paid, the Law was still settled. Make no mistake. You were bought, by Christs passion. You belong to Him. You own Nothing, You have No Rights...everything you get is a Blessed Gift.

We are all tremendously lucky that he Loves us at all. That is His Free Will.

Maybe you'd understand, if you understood what a Monarchy is...and that Christs Rule will be as a KING at worst, Emporar at best...We dont know exactly what form his Government will take. You could...if you were very staunch, say that just as a Roman Emporar rulled with a Senate...so Christ will indulge the Christians in a little leadership ahead of governing the angelic host, as St Paul insists happens at some point. My Guess is that he wont. He will be Rex Celestis, Soverign Ruller of Earth and Heaven....if you dare step into his light without Christ...you will face the same peril as those who came into contact with the Ark of the Covernant, without being specifically instructed to. Thats why the Temple had a curtain....it wasnt to signify simply Holiness...but also for straight forward protection of the Sinner against a perfect GOD....being that the very spot of communion prior to Christ, between Man and GOD was the physical space above the Ark...He litterally sat upon a throne incasing his Law. Rather Spectacular. Something that Mortal eyes would not be able to behold without being first sanctified.

Tyburn
12-25-2012, 09:34 PM
it doesn't matter what you believe, you do not understand U.S. government and the philosophy behind its founding if you think our government is the body granting ANY rights. founding documents are merely a reflection that those rights have always existed and are laws of nature, which are self-evident. government's role is intended to be nothing more than protection of the citizen and their individual rights, which obviously includes protection from governing bodies.

it makes me kind of sad really, that you think rights are granted from government. but I guess that's why when your government came knocking for guns no one put up any kind of a meaningful resistance.

Laws of Nature...and things which are "Self evident" are opinions which varry from person to person, from philosopher to philosopher. They are "opinions" and Opinions are not Facts.

Therefore you ask...in whose opinion are the "founding documents (are) merely a reflection that those rights have always existed and are laws of nature, which are self-evident." Logically speaking, that opinion lies with the people who wrote the constitution. That was a Federal Government of the 1780s.

In Political Philosophy, Rights come from Law, Law comes from Governments, Governments come from Kings, Kings are ordained by GOD to Rule. Therefore Rights come froma Human Being, who GOD has put in place. This is a fallen world, those are fallen people...therefore their Laws are not perfect, Their rights might be Just...or injust.

Without Order their is but chaos. Without Law, there are no Rights.

If you want to apply that to GOD, then look at his Law...if you can satisfy his Law, you may have the Rights that go with it....but good luck with that...his benchmark is permanent perfection and Holiness.

NateR
12-25-2012, 09:42 PM
The King of England is not a God, anymore then your founding Fathers are Gods...both may grant you rights UNDER THE LAW...but that doesnt mean the Law They give you...or the Rights in those laws are from GOD...anymore then any politicians opinions on what should and shouldnt be rights


Are you intentionally misunderstanding this? It sure seems that way. You seem to be interpreting every single comment I make to mean exactly the opposite of what I intend it to mean. Are you trying to be irrational?

And what does the Calvinism thing have to do with anything? Can a person's views and understanding of GOD never grow or change over time? Besides I don't ever recall speaking out against Calvinism in the past. If you can present some posts of mine to that effect then I'd read them and consider your point.

Also, we all know that Christ will return as a monarch. However, He is the only One who deserves that title. Just because we recognize that fact doesn't mean we need to bow the knee to just any human schlubb who claims to be anointed by GOD. Sure GOD anointed human kings in the Old Testament, but we need to remember that their demand for a king was considered a rejection of GOD.

Tyburn
12-25-2012, 10:16 PM
Are you intentionally misunderstanding this? It sure seems that way. You seem to be interpreting every single comment I make to mean exactly the opposite of what I intend it to mean. Are you trying to be irrational?

I dont believe in GOD-Given Rights.

I believe in Rights given by Laws of the Land...but I do not pretend they are an absolute...Nor that they are GODS LAW.

I Believe the "Right" to bear arms, is a Right only under constitutional law, an ammendment, by the will of a Federal Government in the 1780s

I see that the Bible only really gives precedence for a Government capable of creating Law as stemming from a Monarch, or an Emporar...because they are supposed to be the reflection of Christ (even if they fail as sinners)

I note that the Federal Government of the 1780s is not only based on a contrary system, but actually denies the above entirely, is several key ways.

*They deliberatley use Monarchy as the basis for "The Tyrant"
*They claim all men are born equal, and thus refute Ordination, or Annointing, for that would imply the Monarchic Branch as in some way superior
*The set an absolute basis for eternal rule, which would deny any Monarch the ability to change rules, add rules, subtract rules, or modify rules

In order that the above be underwritten by something more powerful then a Government, they appeal to a higher source, thus freeing themselves from the responsibility of having made the Rules...for they say that these are not their laws...but the GOD-Given Rules...therefore they also, presumably, believe this law not only suitable to themselves...but suitable for the entireity of man.

I may find those Rules Just, I may even like some of them. I may believe they are founded on Christian principles..but I will NOT pretend that their source is anything other then a Government of men.

Therefore...when the Citizens start also appealing to GOD...I find there presumption as false, as the presumption of the people who created it. That I can not deny...or else the Constitution of the Federal Republic of the United States of America...being GOD-Given...is on a par with The Old Testament Law...since I know that to be GOD-Given.

In that Law their are Rights...but those rights are unobtainable...and therefore account to the same as not being in existance. Therefore if I believe the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights to be legitmately of GOD, and filled with obtainable Rights...I can not believe them both.

I choose to believe the Old Testament.

What is Illogical about that? :huh:

Tyburn
12-25-2012, 10:23 PM
Also, we all know that Christ will return as a monarch. However, He is the only One who deserves that title. Just because we recognize that fact doesn't mean we need to bow the knee to just any human schlubb who claims to be anointed by GOD. Sure GOD anointed human kings in the Old Testament, but we need to remember that their demand for a king was considered a rejection of GOD.

I think thats ultimately because the Human King can not fully reflect Christ....and how damaged is the world because Human Kings have acted in ways which are contrary to their sacred annointing?

Would we even be having this discussion, if King George had done his duty concerning the collonies? :sad:

But there is evidences in the Scriptures for this method of politics being carried out correctly...and to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence of that being the case for a Constitution....Certainly not a Constitution that stands APART from the Governing body...and certainly not one that claims to be absolute...EXCEPT FOR...The Old Testament Law

Tyburn
12-25-2012, 10:51 PM
From the Mouth of a Monarchy Two Millenia in age...and a decendant of Mad King George....comes something which shows what Monarchy is all about

""This is the time of year when we remember, that GOD sent his Only Son, to Serve, not to be Served. He Restored Love and Service to the Centre of our Lives in the person of Jesus Christ. It is my prayer this Christmas day, that his Example and Teaching may continue to bring people together, to give the best of themselves, in the service of others.""

If you want to see her full speech its in the political section.

Queen Elizabeth believes that she was born, annointed by GOD, to Serve the Nation. You may have experienced a heratage lashed with the markings of the worst a monarchy can symbolize...I hope this shows you the best of Monarchy.

Try to understand that this is the Monarch who saw her Empire distroyed, Saw her Status reduced to figurehead, and yet despite all that she could well be the best Monarch that has ever rulled over us.

I think at this stage I will bow out of this thread. I have shown you clearly, where our Cultures dissagree, and given you my theological understandings that have led me to that place. Neither of us will change our position, because we are both indoctrinated into our respective cultures. To continue will just be to spiral into ever deepening irrelevence.

But I just wanted you to know that Monarchs can be good as well as bad.

NateR
12-26-2012, 02:01 AM
I dont believe in GOD-Given Rights.

Then you should cancel any plans you have to move to America, this is not the country for you.

I believe in Rights given by Laws of the Land...but I do not pretend they are an absolute...Nor that they are GODS LAW.

So, the right to life is something granted by a human-run government? :blink: If a government decides you have no right to live would you willingly allow them to terminate your life? If you say "no" then you have just contradicted your own argument.

What about property rights? Is that something granted by a government? Can the government come into your house and take all of your possessions and drained your bank account? Would you willingly go along with that? If you believe that your government is the source of your property rights, then you would have to. Otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

I Believe the "Right" to bear arms, is a Right only under constitutional law, an ammendment, by the will of a Federal Government in the 1780s

Then you are pretty ignorant of your own nation's history.

I see that the Bible only really gives precedence for a Government capable of creating Law as stemming from a Monarch, or an Emporar...because they are supposed to be the reflection of Christ (even if they fail as sinners)

Then you are pretty ignorant of the Bible as well.

I note that the Federal Government of the 1780s is not only based on a contrary system, but actually denies the above entirely, is several key ways.

It's only a contrary system based on your limited understanding.

*They deliberatley use Monarchy as the basis for "The Tyrant"
*They claim all men are born equal, and thus refute Ordination, or Annointing, for that would imply the Monarchic Branch as in some way superior
*The set an absolute basis for eternal rule, which would deny any Monarch the ability to change rules, add rules, subtract rules, or modify rules

The Founding Fathers simply acknowledged that Jesus Christ was our one true King. The line of Biblical kings was passed on to Jesus thousands of years ago. Since He is still alive, then no human being can legitimately claim to be a "GOD-anointed" monarch. That job is not vacant and it never will be again. In this day and age, any human trying to claim that they have been anointed by GOD to be a monarch is simply a liar and a fraud.

In order that the above be underwritten by something more powerful then a Government, they appeal to a higher source, thus freeing themselves from the responsibility of having made the Rules...for they say that these are not their laws...but the GOD-Given Rules...therefore they also, presumably, believe this law not only suitable to themselves...but suitable for the entireity of man.

I may find those Rules Just, I may even like some of them. I may believe they are founded on Christian principles..but I will NOT pretend that their source is anything other then a Government of men.

Therefore...when the Citizens start also appealing to GOD...I find there presumption as false, as the presumption of the people who created it. That I can not deny...or else the Constitution of the Federal Republic of the United States of America...being GOD-Given...is on a par with The Old Testament Law...since I know that to be GOD-Given.

In that Law their are Rights...but those rights are unobtainable...and therefore account to the same as not being in existance. Therefore if I believe the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights to be legitmately of GOD, and filled with obtainable Rights...I can not believe them both.

You're argument makes absolutely no logical sense. Are you saying that GOD-given right, by their very definition, must be unobtainable? That's nonsense.

However, I can understand your inability to understand these concepts, since you've known nothing but a monarchy your entire life. It's not your fault, you just haven't learned to think outside of your little box yet.

I choose to believe the Old Testament.

How can you? Based on your comments, you have obviously never really read it. The Pentateuch (aka The Torah) (aka Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)(aka Mosaic Law), did NOTHING to set up a human monarchy. It actually sets up a theocracy, with GOD as the head of the government. It was only after Israel rejected GOD's form of government that He allowed them to have a monarch.

What is Illogical about that? :huh:

Pretty much everything you've said in this thread so far.

NateR
12-26-2012, 02:05 AM
Queen Elizabeth believes that she was born, annointed by GOD, to Serve the Nation.

Well, someone lied to her, because that's not possible. The line of David was terminated after Christ, thus NOBODY living today can make that claim. So, Queen Elizabeth is a nothing more than a pretender to the throne.

huan
12-26-2012, 05:26 AM
Laws of Nature...and things which are "Self evident" are opinions which varry from person to person, from philosopher to philosopher. They are "opinions" and Opinions are not Facts.

in actuality they are truths, not opinions. logic dictates that much.

and since the Bible talks about God's law being written on all of our hearts, I'm not sure why you would contest this. we feel bad when we lie or steal as a result of it. the fact that we have done wrong therefore is self-evident; no law of man can change that. no government of man can draft laws which grants or represses the rights of human beings, which are God given.

Tyburn
12-30-2012, 11:41 PM
FAO PTM:

I Remember telling you how when GOD had protected Saint Paul's Cathedral from Two waves of German Bombers, the third wave never turned up in the skies above London due to bad weather over the Channel.

I just wanted to tell you that it isnt the first time GOD has used Weather in the Channel to stop an Enemy of England from Triumph when for all intense and purposes they should advance.

The Other Occurance was 23rd July 1588. In Short, the King of Spain decided to avenge the execution of His Wife, Queen Mary of Scotland, whose claim to the English Throne was that she was Roman Catholic, whilst the reigning Monarch Queen Elizabeth I was Anglican.

Through excellent military strategy, which involved forcing the spanish to break the formation of their armada by sailing kamakazi warships on fire into their midst, and excellently bad weather, which the Spanish Ships couldnt cope with, but the English Ships could, the Armada never even made landfall in England...let alone attempt a full scale land invasion.

The Spanish have never faced such a tremendous defeat at sea, even to this day...and within a decade their Monarch had died in disgrace...and thats when their financial issues concerning bankruptcy began (they are STILL Bankrupt over half a Millenia later :laugh: )

They should have won with ease. I Believe that GOD himself protected our Nation at that time, just like he did in the 1940s.

Queen Elizabeth I said: My loving people, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes for fear of treachery; but, I do assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself, that under God I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and goodwill of my subjects; and, therefore, I am come amongst you as you see at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of battle, to live or die amongst you all – to lay down for my God, and for my kingdoms, and for my people, my honour and my blood even in the dust. I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king – and of a King of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which, rather than any dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms – I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, for your forwardness, you have deserved rewards and crowns, and, we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people


I wont bother addressing Nathan since he seems incapable of reading my replies that have already covered his points. As for Huan....Matters of Conscience differ from people to people....YOU might feel bad when you steal or lie...but some people have no problem with rape and murder...therefore its NOT a logical following, that because a majority aggree it becomes a right from GOD

I have no problem with Rights under any Law. My Problem isnt that Guns are protected by US Law...that I dont despute, and never have. My issue is with where Americans believe their law comes from. Many Diss nations like mine for having laws stemming from potentially Tyranical Governments, or monarchies....but somehow a constitution written BY A GOVERNMENT which was their own...well thats exempt because its Rights are from GOD.

You think the British are pompous? At least you dont here us pretending our Rights are Divine...Not many Brits would even say that the Right of Kingship is Devine...I would say it has a basis in scripture...but its not a GOD given Right to have a Monarch...because GOD only gave the Old Testament Law.

Outside of the Old Testament Law, all Laws are relative to their Authority, and as different laws differ under different authorities, no laws can be absolute...therefore, logic dictates that as Rights spring from the Law, so the same applies.

Heaven help us if we took everything the Europeans claims are Human Rights as GOD Given...Would the United States of America, halt the extradition of a Terrorist, because it is a GOD given right for someone to have a family...and he's written down his pooch as his sole dependant? I mean FFS!! THATS what happens when you start down the Human Rights road.

I accept that not all Laws are Just...I personally dont think its Just to hang people just because they are homosexual...but in some countries, by following the law, that is exactly what they do. Its not rocket science what I would do if that rule ever came to England....obviously, I'd run and hide, or leave the country, and from afar I would lobby for change...but I certainly wouldnt deny that the authority of those particular lands have the jurisdiction to make those rules....In England you see in our past what happens when people dont like a law thats made...they try to do something to change the law. If you have a problem with a Monarch...you dont declair that GOD hates all Monarchs...No...You assassinate the Monarch and replace him with one that you like :laugh: or you aid the attempts of a perfered candidate to overthrow the Government you dont like...thats what Queen Mary was trying to do when she got executed for High Treason...and thats the risk you run...and ironically, for all that some of the loud mouthed americans on this forum go on...the one thing that George Washington is said to have understood completely, is the gravity of what he was doing. He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was committing High Treason, and he knew very well what would happen if he was unsuccessful in his bid for Freedom.

The total Irony is that George Washington actually had deeply held respect for the Monarchy, for its position, for its power...AND for what it was worth...which is why he was challenging in the first place. He felt mis treated by the institution that should have been supporting him, and he felt the credibility divide was too much for reconcilliation. But what he never advocated was any kind of abolition.

He didnt want to free England from Tyrany...Just the collonial outposts. The Venom with which one of you has spoken against a Reigning Monarch who has given nothing but the most exemplory of service to her subjects, is sickening...and would be sickening to any 1700 American or English. Before Elizabeth is spoken against, perhaps one should look at the American Government....A Federal Government, that has enslaved fifty soverign American States, with a bogus Supreme Court only capable of rulling in favour of its Federal Financial Supply line, a Bi-Partisan Government that play silly beggers whilst their people are stuck in the midst of a recession...and a President, who doesnt even get ellected on the basis of a simple democratic popular vote.

If You ask me...even with your blasted firearms...your more in bondage then I...you just dont know it.

Tyburn
12-31-2012, 12:13 AM
Then you should cancel any plans you have to move to America, this is not the country for you.

Probably less then half of all americans even believe in the Christian GOD, therefore, logically they cant believe in GOD given anything. I cancelled my plans to move to the State in 2009, if you were paying more attention you would know why. Ironically, I dont feel they have adequet Employment Rights...Something evidently NOT GOD Given according to America :laugh:

So, the right to life is something granted by a human-run government? :blink: If a government decides you have no right to live would you willingly allow them to terminate your life? If you say "no" then you have just contradicted your own argument.

I Would recognise they had the Authority to make the rulling. Willingness has nothing to do with it. I would run, hide, and leave the country. I didnt say that I loved all laws...just that Governments have the authority to make them. In some countries, people like me ARE terminated.

What about property rights? Is that something granted by a government? Can the government come into your house and take all of your possessions and drained your bank account? Would you willingly go along with that? If you believe that your government is the source of your property rights, then you would have to. Otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

All Property is owned by the Crown, Via the Councils. I might own the physical structures on the Land, but they own the land. Even with full ownership, we cant change our structures without planning permission from the Crown, except in various loop holes to do with size and classification of structures. I never said Governments had control of banking...Banks have control of banking...and thanks to YOUR banks...we have seen people who have lost pensions and the likes...does that make the people of Wall street Tyrants? Recognition of Authority doesnt mean you have to go along with it...so why you keep using "willingly" I dont know. After all...I know who you are on this Forum, but I still feel fine with telling you when I think your wrong. I recognise your authority, but I'm hardly "willing" to be silent as you would like on matters such as these

Then you are pretty ignorant of your own nation's history.

Really? Look on the Statute books...its called Common law...something you wouldnt understand since you've never lived under it. But its the right to repeal laws. Just because one King granted us a Law...doesnt mean later Kings did the same. Sorry its not the same with your Presidents.

Then you are pretty ignorant of the Bible as well.

I'm not the one who believes in Calvinism and a Loveless GOD.

It's only a contrary system based on your limited understanding.

Of Course...I was forgetting the American knows best :rolleyes: I have the ability to see things from others perspectives...which is why I could do this whole debate by myself...coz I can factually fight both sides of most of the debates I enter, especially on here. Thats something you never could do. You couldnt write my side of this argument...but I could write a piece giving the arguments for GOD given Rights AND Gun control if I wanted to. Infact...I could do that better then you've done here in this thread. I'm not as dumbass as you think.

The Founding Fathers simply acknowledged that Jesus Christ was our one true King. The line of Biblical kings was passed on to Jesus thousands of years ago. Since He is still alive, then no human being can legitimately claim to be a "GOD-anointed" monarch. That job is not vacant and it never will be again. In this day and age, any human trying to claim that they have been anointed by GOD to be a monarch is simply a liar and a fraud.

Now thats the first proper counter you've made in the whole thread. I almost dont want to ruin it by answering...since its so beautifully composed. Christ is also the High Priest...so I suppose in your eyes, anyone that has a calling to the priesthood is a liar and fraud also...as no doubt that vacancy is filled also.

I wont confuse things further by saying the Jesus Christ was King BEFORE King David, before Any Monarch....he has always been King because he is timeless...so are THEY Frauds and Liars also? and how about poor Zadok the Priest who it is inscribed in the Bible "Anointed" Solomon King? Tricked was he?

You're argument makes absolutely no logical sense. Are you saying that GOD-given right, by their very definition, must be unobtainable? That's nonsense.

CORRECT! I am saying the only GOD Given rights are from the Old Testament Law and that all of the Old Testament Law is unobtainable!

However, I can understand your inability to understand these concepts, since you've known nothing but a monarchy your entire life. It's not your fault, you just haven't learned to think outside of your little box yet.

Touche...coz living under Barack Obama must be...such fun :wink:

How can you? Based on your comments, you have obviously never really read it. The Pentateuch (aka The Torah) (aka Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)(aka Mosaic Law), did NOTHING to set up a human monarchy. It actually sets up a theocracy, with GOD as the head of the government. It was only after Israel rejected GOD's form of government that He allowed them to have a monarch.

I Didnt say the Law set up Monarchy...I said in Old Testament times (I'll just quote you here) "He allowed them to have a Monarch" That was a direct permission...its not exactly a Right given to Israel...but as damn close as its possible to have one on a State level without the Old Testament Law

Pretty much everything you've said in this thread so far.

You may dissagree...but you shouldnt pretend you dont understand what I mean.

Neezar
12-31-2012, 04:16 PM
I wont bother addressing Nathan since he seems incapable of reading my replies that have already covered his points.


Liar, liar
pants on fire


:laugh:

Neezar
12-31-2012, 04:24 PM
The total Irony is that George Washington actually had deeply held respect for the Monarchy, for its position, for its power..

-Then why didn't he want that for us?

AND for what it was worth...which is why he was challenging in the first place. He felt mis treated by the institution that should have been supporting him, and he felt the credibility divide was too much for reconcilliation. But what he never advocated was any kind of abolition.

What's your point? Is anyone here advocating any kind of abolition for your monarchy?


He didnt want to free England from Tyrany...Just the collonial outposts. The Venom with which one of you has spoken against a Reigning Monarch who has given nothing but the most exemplory of service to her subjects, is sickening...and would be sickening to any 1700 American or English.

You should read of some of the venom spewed by our leaders (in public forums) at the time. No one here has come close to matching the hatred towards parliment and the king that was felt by those men.



I do applaud your mastery at diversion. :laugh:

VCURamFan
01-07-2013, 04:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZkHcbqG8yk

huan
01-07-2013, 04:46 AM
"hunting and sporting clause" - brilliant! good on that Marine...

VCURamFan
01-07-2013, 05:08 AM
"hunting and sporting clause" - brilliant! good on that Marine...
I particularly liked "an unconstitutional law isn't a law".

Tyburn
01-07-2013, 04:01 PM
-Then why didn't he want that for us?

He didnt want the British Crown for America because it failed in its duty to the collonies. King George appeared to be lapse on everything to do with supporting the collonies in America, he took his time giving his final stamp of approval, for example, to local laws, without which, they couldnt be enforced, leaving the Collonies unable to adjudicate on a local level. But King George had no quarms about ensuring what the collonies owed the Empire was paid in full, promptly, and disproportionatley.

What King George did was quite bizzare, considering that he acknowledged ultimate responsibilities for the Collonies, why would he not wish to send delegates to help them, or meet with them when they sent delegations across to England. Why, if they were part of the Empire, were they barred from representation in Westminster Palace? They had a right to feel abandoned and insulted

There are two answers to the above. The first being that King George was clincally insane. The second is that King George was very angry with the American Collonies for what he saw as Tretcherous trade with the French in the pacific....Rather then take the Americans to task for trading with a country that the Empire was officially at war with, George decided just to be as difficult as possible. George Washington understood this, why do you think in the declaration of Independance, the Examples of what Constitutes a "Free State" include the ability to declaire war and peace, and the ability to trade with who they wish? The inclusion of those two things are manifest truth, that even whilst George Washington pretends to be a victim of the Empires careless leaders...he also knows EXACTLY what he has done to provoke that responce. He has declared a truce with the French, He has traded with the French....Even in the days post Empire, that sort of treason would not be tollerated....when George Bush launched his War On Terror...it wasnt just those who were terrorists, OR those who were sympathetic...it was any Nation that had Terrorists within their own jurisdication

The truth is, they are both correct. The Collonies had the right to be treated like any other entity within the Empire, and the Empire had the right to expect members not to be aiding their enemies at the time of war.

There was no general consensus that disolving alliances would remove the ideal of Monarchy, until George Washington himself refused. The Collonies, knowing no different, would obviously instigate their own King. One Man chose not to continue with Monarchy...its not a case that all of America wanted to be absent of a Monarch...they just either wanted the British Crown to do its job...or to leave them alone, because they found it quite intollerable to be in a state of Limbo on a political level...they couldnt decree laws, they couldnt pass sentances...how were they to run the collonies at all on that basis?

What's your point? Is anyone here advocating any kind of abolition for your monarchy?

Of Course. Havent you heard Denise....The right to have a Gun isnt a Right installed by a Government...its a Right installed by GOD...therefore any nation that opposes it, opposes GOD. Any one who does that is a Tyrant to their people for not allowing them their GOD-Given Rights...and is a Fraud. Anyone who says Guns are GODs Right to a man, by default, are condemning my Monarchy as being oppressive of those rights...and what are Americans to do when they encounter such things?

Liberate them of course...so that they too may be Free...Either the Constitution is absolute and applies to the WHOLE EARTH, OR it is just another Man-Made, Governmental Law System.....Several on here have refused to say that the Congress of the 1880s was Responsible for these Rights...no, no...these are not created by Government...these are absolute truths, GOD Given...that every man should be able to protect his family...so says NateR, that these are natural, self evident truths, so says some other. No Creations of a Government, even if put down by them to protect future generations from themself.

You should read of some of the venom spewed by our leaders (in public forums) at the time. No one here has come close to matching the hatred towards parliment and the king that was felt by those men.

I suppose thats something that would have to be analysed on a case by case basis. Obviously a nation at war with another, is not going to speak kindly of them...but a Just Nation does not produce treason...and endlessly we go back to WTF did the American Collonies think they were doing in trading with France when the Empire was at war with France? For a Society based on Loyalty to the Crown...you can easily see why King George would not be ammused...it would be like Guam helpping Iran to build Nuclear Weapons...how would your Government react, if one of its states, during the War on Iraq...decided that perhaps they could just do a little trade with Saddam??? Would they not find themselves out of favour with the Federal Government? Shunned?? then they too might find themselves in a state of Tyrany, where they cant make peace with who they like...Saddam, and they cant trade with who they like...Saddam...and isnt that a GOD given right of any free state??

If I was King George I would never have let it get that far in the first place. I would have enforced law and order in the Collonies, or I would have cut them off when they were unable to fend for themselves. You wouldnt have found me waiting for them to complain that we treated them poorly coz they acted like traitors...and then see me sacrifice men to fight for a bit of land full of people who openly act out high treason. Nope...I would have gutted the french and then watched to see America wither without its non British support...and then when they had repented, and the leaders had gone...I would accept them back into the Empire...of course I would never had excluded them from Westminster in the first place...So perhaps they wouldnt have bothered to go trade with the French because they would feel valued and like their voices were heard...but King George was mentally unwell...and probably unable to reason like that. The best place for the Collonies would be in Parliament...how else would you maintain control over them :laugh: You need your willing subjects to be near you, so you know what they are up to...George probably didnt even know what was going on in the collonies half the time...thats just...stupid...if you own them...its like having a back garden but never going out the back door :laugh:

NateR
01-07-2013, 07:22 PM
Liar, liar
pants on fire


:laugh:

LOL. Yeah, Dave in incapable of staying out of an argument, even when it's clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about and we stop responding to him because all he is doing is embarrassing himself by his display of absolute ignorance.

:laugh: