Old Shep Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Wild West mentality Spot on. The 2nd Amendment was intended as a temporary measure, and the circumstances which originally necessitated it were over within 20 years or so. Yet all the yahoos still cling to it like a cross between a comfort blanket and a surrogate penis. It is perhaps expecting too much for all the rednecks to have a sudden change of heart, but Obama now has the opportunity to go down in history as the president who finally ended this madness. And yes, it can be done. The clue's in the name - 2nd Amendment. If the Constitution could be amended several times hundreds of years ago, it can sure as hell be amended again now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledded1 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 There are so many crooked cops out there is incredible. I had one follow my wife and I and a couple home from a restaurnt and lie about why he followed me. A blatant fucking lie. They can get away with whatever they want. I dont like cops. Most of them are ego maniacs. no ego maniacs around here thankfully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledded1 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 meanwhile there've been about 63 mass shootings in 40 years. That's just over 1 per state in a country with a population in excess of 300 million. That's all right then, it's not many really is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 That's all right then, it's not many really is it. In a country with a population of over 300 million, 63 incidents in 40 years is nearly infinitesimal, yet each time it happens the freaking media & bleeding heart liberal politicians bang their drums as relentlessly as possible to rally support to further ban, control & restrict the constitutional right of 300 million people. Bear in mind, even with a total ban any guarentee of security is still at best an illusion. If the US had an essentially homogenous population with virtually zero tolerance for drugs a ban could be effective, but as is you'd have to be bat-shit insane to surrender your constitutional right to bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Steve, you really need to stretch your compassion muscles sometimes. Those kids only died 3 days ago and already you are writing the incident off as unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 The 2nd Amendment was intended as a temporary measure. Completely false! The second amendment was intended to preserve and guarantee the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. This link is a magnificent rebuttal of any assertion to the contrary: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Steve, you really need to stretch your compassion muscles sometimes. Those kids only died 3 days ago and already you are writing the incident off as unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Sad. My initial posts to this thread focused solely on their tragic loss and the essential ongoing investigation. I didn't politicize it nor push any agenda, but unsurprisingly that is the direction the discourse here and in the country at large has gone, just as it always does. There are members of Congress already pushing legislation, & President Obama has all but said he's going to issue an Executive Order. Despite the relentless drum beating, we must be very careful not to lose our collective sense of perspective. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 For Steve, and the rest who think that "money" and "funding" scratches out my thoughts, or possibilities........ I just heard (from my local news radio station) a soundclip from an Obama speech from either last night or this morning (not sure) He speaks of using whatever means are available to them (law enforcement and mental illness programs) to prevent, or lower the chances of this from happening. "We are NOT going to accept this and lay over and give up...because what choice do we have" is an exact quote he used. When I get home later, maybe I can locate the soundclip or a video associated with this, but that's what I heard this morning from the horses mouth. And I was glad to hear this! And he was serious. Not a political stunt by any stretch. So there ya go......What's more important? Money or more mass murders? Be interesting to see in the coming weeks what they find as a possible (even temporary solutions) with the resources available. But like I said "more law enforcement" was mentioned first.. Thank You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I just heard (from my local news radio station) a soundclip from an Obama speech from either last night or this morning (not sure)... Oh, I'm sure Obama can't wait to feel his oats on gun control now that he's going into a non-election year. I remember President Bill Clinton used to give speeches about putting "100,000 police officers on the streets": http://www.slate.com...sible_cops.html Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. More recently, how about these comments from tv journalist Geraldo Rivera on the Bill O'Reilly Show: This is the worst thing ever and there's a scene I can't get out of my mind. You have these babies who had never seen evil, who are in the flower of innocence, and here's a grownup dressed in camouflage and he's killing the children and he's reloading... I want an armed cop at every school, we have to protect these children as if they were gold. If I didn't know better, I'd think Geraldo had hacked your LZ.com account. Regardless, the problem with all of these socialist utopian ideas is you'll run out of other people's money. I've already shown Rivera's fantasy costs a billion+ dollars a year for payroll alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Melanie Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 What worries me is that we will spend a great deal of time, energy and money on treating the symptoms instead of the problem. The main issue at hand is one of mental illness as well as a gun control issue and IMO is a bigger issue. We are arguing over what money can be spent on armed presence in schools but what about money allocated for those suffering from depression and mental illness? Clearly this man was not mentally sane. Could he have had help? Would a diagnosis and treatment prevented this horrible tragedy? We need to honor those who were killed, especially the 20 children by looking inward and try to make REAL changes to our society that allows everyone peace of mind and safety. If that means assault rifles are banned, tough shit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 We need to honor those who were killed, especially the 20 children by looking inward and try to make REAL changes to our society that allows everyone peace of mind and safety. If that means assault rifles are banned, tough shit! :bravo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Oh, I'm sure Obama can't wait to feel his oats on gun control now that he's going into a non-election year. I remember President Bill Clinton used to give speeches about putting "100,000 police officers on the streets": http://www.slate.com...sible_cops.html Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. More recently, how about these comments from tv journalist Geraldo Rivera on the Bill O'Reilly Show: This is the worst thing ever and there's a scene I can't get out of my mind. You have these babies who had never seen evil, who are in the flower of innocence, and here's a grownup dressed in camouflage and he's killing the children and he's reloading... I want an armed cop at every school, we have to protect these children as if they were gold. If I didn't know better, I'd think Geraldo had hacked your LZ.com account. Regardless, the problem with all of these socialist utopian ideas is you'll run out of other people's money. I've already shown Rivera's fantasy costs a billion+ dollars a year for payroll alone. Hey Steve, guess what? Geraldo's one of many many people who believe this should happen. So , I didn't get my account hacked...LOL "When your right, your right". Even goof balls like him have their good moments. I completely understand your argument with funding..I get that. But I believe it can be done, somehow-some way, even if it means more tax dollars, and/or using able-bodied, healthy, ex-veterans (giving them a job, which would also raise the employment rate) as a security guard. I'll ask you again...what's more important to you, money or saving lives? That's what the President and government are faced with, and whether the answer to the problem is something similar to my thoughts or not, they will have to fund money for something, some kind of way...That's the reality of it Steve, no matter how you slice and dice it- MONEY will be part of the equation no matter what action is taken. Unless they decide to ban guns nation wide.... and you know that's not in the realm of things-so scratch that idea all together. And stricter gun laws won't do shit...As long as you have bad people, there will be laws broken. Do you have kids Steve, nephew's, Niece's ..? Your comment about Obama's speech...well, your political thoughts on the man shouldn't get in the way of what's right for saving lives. I don't think there is anyone in this country that is sane who would disagree that something has to be done. I didn't vote for the guy either FYI, but I stand behind what he said regarding this, and he himself mentioned taking action and getting together with law inforcement, including mental illness programs, etc. So if you wanna call it "socialist utopian" ideas, go right ahead. I'm for what's best for the country and kids/people's saftey. Even if it means more tax dollars. How's this for a quote: "where there is a will, there is a way" Also, some info that came out this morning reports that this kid had a lot more ammo, and seized fire on the individuals and shot himself after he heard the alarm/sirens suggesting that the first responders (police) were arriving..So what does that tell you Steve? He could have fuckin' wiped out the entire school or at least many more people than what he did, but he stopped short of that because enforcements were near and he didn't want to be taken out by them. Think about that. The Media needs to STOP showing the faces of these killers on TV. Period. It only glorifies them, and gives them more of a reason to do what thay do. http://youtu.be/rr-dWD5d64k If you care to stomach watching the man, my point is at 2:19 - 4:31 So we keep going back and fourth with this... You already know where I stand, but I'm unclear as to what "solutions" - logical, realistic ones, you think should take place.............besides moving to Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedZeppfan77 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Oh, I'm sure Obama can't wait to feel his oats on gun control now that he's going into a non-election year. I remember President Bill Clinton used to give speeches about putting "100,000 police officers on the streets": http://www.slate.com...sible_cops.html Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. More recently, how about these comments from tv journalist Geraldo Rivera on the Bill O'Reilly Show: This is the worst thing ever and there's a scene I can't get out of my mind. You have these babies who had never seen evil, who are in the flower of innocence, and here's a grownup dressed in camouflage and he's killing the children and he's reloading... I want an armed cop at every school, we have to protect these children as if they were gold. If I didn't know better, I'd think Geraldo had hacked your LZ.com account. Regardless, the problem with all of these socialist utopian ideas is you'll run out of other people's money. I've already shown Rivera's fantasy costs a billion+ dollars a year for payroll alone. I have not seen Geraldo in ages. I thought he was off the air. Ok Knebby, you can bann assault rifles. That is fine with me. Just not pistols and shotguns. I do not think you can stop someone that is a sick maniac like this guy in Conn. Its just too difficult without help from those that knew him coming forward. Someone had to know this guy was close to snapping. They should be held accountable to some degree also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the chase Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 no ego maniacs around here thankfully No egomaniacs in The UK ... You read it here first folks. Most Police I've dealt with have been fair. Treat them with the respect they deserve and they'll do the same back.. simple as that. That's all right then, it's not many really is it. It's about 63 too many.. In a country with a population of over 300 million, 63 incidents in 40 years is nearly infinitesimal, yet each time it happens the freaking media & bleeding heart liberal politicians bang their drums as relentlessly as possible to rally support to further ban, control & restrict the constitutional right of 300 million people. Bear in mind, even with a total ban any guarentee of security is still at best an illusion. If the US had an essentially homogenous population with virtually zero tolerance for drugs a ban could be effective, but as is you'd have to be bat-shit insane to surrender your constitutional right to bear arms. Right to bear arms? Sure. You don't need to have an arsenal like John FN Rambo to protect yourself though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Sorry, but that sounds a lot like "America Declares War On (fill in the blank)"...poverty, drugs, etc. Oh please Steve..don't come with that bullshit. Do you even care, "really care" about what we are talking about??? So when IS enough, enough? When it happens to someone YOU know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 And that's the problem with having a codified constitution. Some aspects of it become outmoded and require change. It's very difficult to implement these changes if they are enshrined in the Constitution. I've said this exact thing in an earlier post. Those "quotes" Steve Jones wants to throw in the mix from Ben Franklin doesn't mean shit these days...Point being-If the people who built this country and wrote the constitution could see how things were run/turning out this day in age, you bet your sweet ass they'd be plenty of changes to the rule book. Trust me. They are rolling in their graves with disgust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I was estimating having 1 or 2 per school and to be honest I didn't know exactly how many schools there were over there. It would be an expensive exercise. One way is to roster local cops on one day a week to patrol the schools during school hours. They could even start an hour before and after school to make up an 8 hour day. They are already being paid for doing the job anyway. How many new cops graduate from the academies per year? They could be utilised too. Even if they had to pay overtime it would be negligible. It would be tricky in remote towns with only small forces but if they only had to put on one extra cop it is employment for a local and a valuable resource. Yes, you ARE 100% correct. It's not rocket science after all... It's a shame someone from across the world makes more sence on the subject than people who live (or did live) in this country. Even if they hire ex-veterans who are able-bodied and healthy, to work as security guards, they are not only using someone who is already trained and familiar, but putting people to work which reduces the unemployment rate. Either way, no matter what the action or solution is to the problem here, MONEY will be part of it. Whether it be funding for police, or otherwise, money will have to come from somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledded1 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 No egomaniacs in The UK ... You read it here first folks. I was beingsarcastic and talking about the forum not the UK, there's plenty over here. This statement was being ironic in response to SAJ's post where he seems to think 63 isn'tmany in 40 years. Well it is 63 too many. It's about 63 too many.. Right to bear arms? Sure. You don't need to have an arsenal like John FN Rambo to protect yourself though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the chase Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Thank you for clarifying.. I agree 63 is 63 too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledded1 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 So is it the gun, the culture or both? Switzerland has more gun owners per capita (including full automatic rifles) than most other western industrialized nations. Yet the Swiss statistically have very few incidents of murder or violent crime involving firearms. I think both of them. Why is that? Better culture, better values, less crime, less poverty? Ask the Swiss and then look at the US. You cannot apply the same standards you have in the UK to what is happening in another nation or culture. When I visited London back in the early 70s I was very impressed to see that the "Bobbies" (London Police) did not carry guns. For a kid from a large American city that was a big shock to me. I later learned that in England it was considered correct culture for not only the police to be very polite to all citizens, but also for the citizens to be very cooperative with the police. I learned that even if a person was arrested, it was rare that they needed to even use handcuffs. That may have changed now, I'm not sure. But if it did change, it was because there has been a change in the culture/values. I wasn't seeking to apply the same standards, I am happier that here in the UK we don't all carry guns or have an outdated constitution that says we should. it doesn't mean we are free of gun crime either where most is committed using illegally obtained guns. We don't lose thousands per year to gun related incidents and we don't have to be talking about putting armed people in our schools as a response to such incidents as Newtown. Fight guns with guns what an solution. How to create a safe feeling we demand our right to freedom declaring society. Tat is not the same culture here in the US. Here there is a much different history of police abuse, racial discrimination and violent criminial gangs and offenders. A much different culture, which means that many Americans still have a good reason to be armed in order to protect themselves. There is also a long standing tradition of frontier individualism which demanded guns be present in everyday life. If you consider that 25% of Americans own guns (nearly 200 million guns); that means that most guns are in the hands of normal compassionate and good people. I am aware of the differences but it seems there's plenty of people around who seem to fear their own police and government than they do the "crazy" ones with the guns and that's the excuse to keep the right to bear arms. How is that a free society? Is America the land of the free anymore cos you don't sem to have the freedoms you want. The rest of the world isn't much better these days. You are many times more likely to be killed in an automobile by someone who is either drunk driving or distracted while using a cell phone today. I don't hear people calling for banning cars, cell phones or beer in reaction to the staggering traffic fatalities caused by these accepted things in our lives? Most people don't go out with the intention of killing others with their cars so I always find this argument a poor one acting as a distraction to the issues of gun use and murder in the US ( and other places too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedZeppfan77 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I've said this exact thing in an earlier post. Those "quotes" Steve Jones wants to throw in the mix from Ben Franklin doesn't mean shit these days...Point being-If the people who built this country and wrote the constitution could see how things were run/turning out this day in age, you bet your sweet ass they'd be plenty of changes to the rule book. Trust me. They are rolling in their graves with disgust. Certainly true. But it is almost impossible to change anything in the constitution. Its almost impossible. But Obama made some good examples of how freedom of speech has been tampered with, in a good way I suppose in most cases, not all. If we were to let it stand on merit without any interference, we would have porn on television during primetime. It is not written in law but in action it is compromised. But laws on guns would no doubt have to be more specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Certainly true. But it is almost impossible to change anything in the constitution. Its almost impossible. But Obama made some good examples of how freedom of speech has been tampered with, in a good way I suppose in most cases, not all. If we were to let it stand on merit without any interference, we would have porn on television during primetime. It is not written in law but in action it is compromised. But laws on guns would no doubt have to be more specific. My point is Rick, when the Constitution was written, the world was a different place with different values, mind-sets and the attitudes and behavior of people in general. No mass murderers running amuck, no gun control issues, no mental health awareness, so on and so on, and most importantly, there was a government being built to function properly. If they could see how it all has turned out, they'd be totally disgusted. Unless you can raise the dead, there is no changing/adjusting the Laws of the Constitution, from what I'm aware of, unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave to zep Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 this is such a huge problem. i guess some of you ( U.S. citizens ) resent outsiders such as myself, knebby, ledded1, reggie making comments here. but truly, from our position, we ( don't mean to speak for those just mentioned ) are just appalled by your culture and attitude about guns/violence. i CANNOT imagine entertaining the thought that there need to be police in the schools! you say they are already there because of drugs/violence? wow, really? just think of all those billions of dollars being spent on this, and NOT being spent on mental health/heath/education/housing etc etc etc texas melanie seems to be the only one living in it that can see the woods from the trees. she has kids in school, and can still see the answer is NOT more guns. a previous poster ( who i love and respect ) was angry at us for trying to help. i hope nobody jumps on me for saying this, we truly are wanting to help. heck, the U.S. is an amazing place in so many ways - world leaders in so many great things. learn from this and don't continue to be world leaders in this type of tragedy. again, please don't see this as me preaching, i don't mean to be like that. it's hard to put into words ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 this is such a huge problem. i guess some of you ( U.S. citizens ) resent outsiders such as myself, knebby, ledded1, reggie making comments here. but truly, from our position, we ( don't mean to speak for those just mentioned ) are just appalled by your culture and attitude about guns/violence. i CANNOT imagine entertaining the thought that there need to be police in the schools! you say they are already there because of drugs/violence? wow, really? just think of all those billions of dollars being spent on this, and NOT being spent on mental health/heath/education/housing etc etc etc texas melanie seems to be the only one living in it that can see the woods from the trees. she has kids in school, and can still see the answer is NOT more guns. a previous poster ( who i love and respect ) was angry at us for trying to help. i hope nobody jumps on me for saying this, we truly are wanting to help. heck, the U.S. is an amazing place in so many ways - world leaders in so many great things. learn from this and don't continue to be world leaders in this type of tragedy. again, please don't see this as me preaching, i don't mean to be like that. it's hard to put into words ...... Hello STZ, Who are you referring to about resenting outsiders opinions? I don't think anyone said any such thing.... Speaking for myself, I even complimented Reggie. As an "outsider" he makes perfect sense to me. And you said it right dear, you can't IMAGINE the idea of police in schools or elsewhere. That's because you DON'T live here. But it's not as you imagine it, or can't imagine it -that they are there "expecting" trouble and they represent "fear" to average, everyday people. It's normal to go into a store or someplace and see an officer at the entrance/exit or walking around. It's their job to be there if the man-power allows it to be. They are in most Banks as you should imagine, and in other public places where if there is an issue, they are not far out of reach-but already on the scene. It's not like the book/movie 1984, if that's what your vision is. There is no sense of threat because they are present, unless you have a fear of cops or a problem with them to being with. And what do you mean by someone saying they want more guns? Are you talking about police officers? Officers with guns provide protection...not more of a threat. (except to the intruder) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Who are you referring to about resenting outsiders opinions? I don't think anyone said any such thing.... And you said it right dear, you can't IMAGINE the idea of police in schools or elsewhere. That's because you DON'T live here. And yet this reads EXACTLY like somebody resenting the input of "outsiders". Can't you just take it that people just want to stop people DYING - wherever they live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.