Jump to content

Mass Shooting at Elementary School Connecticut 12/14/12


Recommended Posts

What is your issue? How did I ATTACK you? Because I said you might have been here before? Big deal.That's not an attack at all. It's an open thought that suggest you were a member here before. I never judged you either way, and there are a few banned members here including Rick (LedZeppelinFan77) who openly admits to this, and I have no problem with that guy what so ever. So why so defensive?

I think I answered your post in a respectful way, ending it with that we disagree and I know you mean no harm...So if that's how you wanna continue to be-then I guess there's no common ground here. Let's let it be for the good of the thread.

That was really crafty how you tried to give yourself the last word so you could come out of it all stinking of roses. Rock Historian, son, this is not the only forum I belong to. This isn't near the first one either. I've seen people like you everywhere. You attacked me right from the start for, basically, questioning the amount of power which should be allotted to police/government. You accused me of posting anti-police videos which I did not (That was SteveAJones). You accused me of going on an anti-police rant, when in fact all I've contributed is facts/thoughts/ or agreed with other members posts. Furthermore, I am not the only person you've attacked in this thread, I'm counting four at least, including the most recent attack on Old Shep, that none of which was relevent to this thread.

It says "Troll Slayer" over your picture, genius. You have an agenda.

I told you twice that I was through with you and your antics and I warned you once about being reported. So, just know, you have indeed been reported.

Goodbye.

Thank you TypeO for taking the time to read it. It's an attempt to propose REAL solutions.

Stryder1978, I did read your post and found it extremely informative. Not many people have a great deal of knowledge of guns/assault rifles. Thank you for posting!

Edited by scythe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 789
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

^^ Hi STZ! I know and it really saddens me to see people behave in this manner. It is time that the USA wakes up and realizes that greed has been put above all else that is decent in this country. More important..than doing the right thing or even LIFE!! Disgusting and heart breaking.

the whole world is caught up in greed. greed for more power, money ... for what? what happens when we die? did you really need to strive for all that power and wealth while having disregard for others? where did it get you? we all live a max of 100 years, and then what? can't take that diamond ring and rolls royce and exchange it for another 100 ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was really crafty how you tried to give yourself the last word so you could come out of it all stinking of roses. Rock Historian, son, this is not the only forum I belong to. This isn't the near the first one either. I've seen people like you everywhere. You attacked me right from the start for, basically, questioning the amount of power which should be allotted to police/government. You accused me of posting anti-police videos which I did not (That was SteveAJones). You accused me of going on an anti-police rant, when in fact all I've contributed is facts/thoughts/ or agreed with other members posts. Furthermore, I am not the only person you've attacked in this thread, I'm counting four at least, including the most recent attack on Old Shep, that none of which was relevent to this thread.

It says "Troll Slayer" over your picture, genius. You have an agenda.

I told you twice that I was through with you and your antics and I warned you once about being reported. So, just know, you have indeed been reported.

Goodbye.

You think your cute calling me son all the time...and continuing to throw insults huh buddy? Just like this guy name LedTiki a year ago..ever heard of him?

Oh don't be offended by that, it's not by any chance you.......See ya around Son

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your issue? How did I ATTACK you? Because I said you might have been here before? Big deal.That's not an attack at all. It's an open thought that suggest you were a member here before. I never judged you either way, and there are a few banned members here including Rick (LedZeppelinFan77) who openly admits to this, and I have no problem with that guy what so ever. So why so defensive?

I think I answered your post in a respectful way, ending it with that we disagree and I know you mean no harm...So if that's how you wanna continue to be-then I guess there's no common ground here. Let's let it be for the good of the thread.

:lol: Multi banned but for now forgiven and battle tested veteran of this site since the ticket lottery went up before the O2. I have lost count of my past lives, more than a cat with 9 for sure. And I did my time so to speak. Many months in lockup, many deserved. RH, time to come up for air bro and have a drink. This is like debating abortion, its lose lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole world is caught up in greed. greed for more power, money ... for what? what happens when we die? did you really need to strive for all that power and wealth while having disregard for others? where did it get you? we all live a max of 100 years, and then what? can't take that diamond ring and rolls royce and exchange it for another 100 ....

Exactly, slave to zep. We gain the whole world in exchange for our souls? No thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read every post on this thread and it is a pity that it has degenerated into the name calling and personal attacks.

For my part I tried to offer some practical solutions.

I have not told people how to live their lives or interfere with their freedoms, on the contrary I'm just interested in coming up with solutions that will prevent people dying from such violent means that are happening too frequently in all corners of the Earth.

People from other countries can get killed too in these events simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, usually on vacation etc.

Yes, I am an outsider and at the same time a citizen of this planet and I have every right to give an opinion.

Gun control and total banishment are not mutually exclusive.

Stricter guidelines and regulations are required so that any type of gun is not getting into the wrong hands.

I do wonder why people would have the need for, assault, semi-automatic, automatic weapons (call them what you will), at all.

Those weapons are made specifically to kill regardless of whether in attack or defence.

So far no-one has given a valid reason other than, it's my right.

I am hopeful that sanity will prevail but I wouldn't put the house on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you scythe for the feedback!

Reggie29,

The US already has a prohibition of automatic weapons in the hands of private citizens - only collectors can have them and only with a VERY hard to get permit. As for semi-automatics, ever tried to shoot a running rabbit with a gun that shoots out bullets the size of a pencil eraser? Or a quail (the size of a pigeon) in full flight? A semi-automatic can be very useful for fast moving game.

Personally, I think other than the ban on clip or magazine capacity, there are more than enough gun laws on the books. A more in depth background check and maybe a requirement to register all guns purchased privately might help, but simply enforcing the laws we already have would go a long way.

Did you read my post and see the picture of the "hunting rifle" versus "assault rifle"?? It's mearly cosmetics. The fire power, ammunition and lethality is the same.

post-1944-0-01941600-1355803263_thumb.jp

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that it's been so ingrained into the fabric of american society that the very thought of a constitutional amendment is considered as harsh a crime as treason ! What burns my ass about the NRA is that to disagree with any part of their position is as good as labelling yourself a socialist or a terrorist sympathizer. It's their way or the highway. As long as that's the mind set, and with a congress that couldn't agree on who's buying lunch, I think only an executive order could get it done. That's going to take one hell of a brave president because I think all hell will break loose if he follows through on it. Scary times :(

Thank you for your thoughts. I know gun ownership is ingrained, I grew up there. But I think as with any other restrictive "for the greater good" legislation getting rid of assault riffles in the general population (I'd say handguns too) would eventually become as normal as wearing seat belts. I remember when seat belt legislation came in an a lot of people were mad including the car industry as I recall. But does anyone think twice now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you scythe for the feedback!

Reggie29,

The US already has a prohibition of automatic weapons in the hands of private citizens - only collectors can have them and only with a VERY hard to get permit. As for semi-automatics, ever tried to shoot a running rabbit with a gun that shoots out bullets the size of a pencil eraser? Or a quail (the size of a pigeon) in full flight? A semi-automatic can be very useful for fast moving game.

Personally, I think other than the ban on clip or magazine capacity, there are more than enough gun laws on the books. A more in depth background check and maybe a requirement to register all guns purchased privately might help, but simply enforcing the laws we already have would go a long way.

Did you read my post and see the picture of the "hunting rifle" versus "assault rifle"?? It's mearly cosmetics. The fire power, ammunition and lethality is the same.

I saw the pictures and I have used the first one hunting feral pigs.

Mostly I used a .22 calibre and it was more than enough to bring down pigs, rabbits and 'roos.

Rapid fire weapons are mostly used by impatient hunters because they can't shoot, IMO.

I worked with a deer hunter who used to brag how he stalked his prey and brought them down with a rifle (with telescopic sights from camouflaged hides), that would bring down an elephant.

He would go on and on about how great the "sport" was until I pointed out to him it wasn't much of a sport when they weren't shooting back.

I had an incident at a mate's place one day many years ago.

He was showing me his brother's .22 SLR and pointed it at my face point blank and said "it's not loaded", I pushed the barrel away and guess what? It discharged.

Not all killings are deliberate acts of violence some are just stupid, preventable accidents.

I have always had the utmost respect for guns from an early age.

When I was 14 I joined the Cadet Corps, similar to ROTC and I handled and fired old weapons such as Lee Enfiled .22 and .303 bolt action rifles, Bren Machine Guns and Mortars. We even had a rifle range out back of the school's sports fields.

brenrange.jpg

I'm in the middle looking up after emptying a magazine.

I was taught how to handle and respect guns by military professionals.

So I know what I'm talking about when it comes to high powered guns.

I haven't picked up a gun for over 30 years.

Edited by Reggie29
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stryder1968, I read your post, and yes, mental illness should have been addressed a long time ago. I know this from having a sister now 45 that has suffered since she was 13. She went through a few years of being dangerous to herself and us. We stood by her. She did have to spend time off and on for a few years in institutions. You do not want to visit a state run mental institution, and unless you have money this is where they end up and most stay or they are thrown to the streets if they do not have family there to support them.

Veterans from Vietnam that needed help didn't get any either. Discarded as drug addicts..etc.. pathetic!

I can appreciate your thoughts on restrictions, but try imposing that and majority of people will say their rights are being infringed upon. There is a gun show almost every weekend. Crime continues to increase. Like I stated earlier, I don't know what else to do except to continue to tell my local officials who are supposed to be working for us (imagine that), yet there are so many gun lobbyest with these people in their pocket! I imagine and can only hope that this has opened the eyes to many people to demand a change. No innocent person ever deserves to die, yet every day I cannot turn the TV on without hearing of a shooting.

I am waiting to hear the whole story about this sick man who shot these children, what did the parents know...before I comment on that.

I do know that these children and their family along with other innocent people are paying too big of a price for "peoples rights" and a lack of enforced laws that could have prevented this. Where are their rights?

I hope that moving forward we can all have a productive conversation, better yet, tell these people who are lawmakers that we demand change so that these type of tragedies (at least most of them) can be prevented.

What a disgrace that elementary school children may have to be told that a police officer has to be there to keep them safe. I fear that being a child , that part of that will be taken away from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder why people would have the need for, assault, semi-automatic, automatic weapons (call them what you will), at all.

Those weapons are made specifically to kill regardless of whether in attack or defence.

So far no-one has given a valid reason other than, it's my right.

I am hopeful that sanity will prevail but I wouldn't put the house on it.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

It is about freedom.

Freedom from tyranny.

If our government decides to start taking away our freedom, we will be suitably armed to defend that freedom.

More practically...

It doesn't require an all-out Doomsday to foresee the need for assault-style weapons.

Hurricane Katrina proved how quickly social order degenerates under catastrophic circumstances.

As mentioned earlier, most order was maintained by well-armed private citizens.

And with the high-tech terrorism that is developing, where terrorists are planning ways to disrupt our very way of life through destabilizing communications after an attack, days could easily turn into weeks before order (in the form of communications) could be restored.

You could easily find yourself having to defend your home and family against bands or groups of outlaws bent on savagery, either for survival (food and water) or just for savagery's sake.

People will mock these comments, but countries all over Africa already endure roaming hordes of outlaws in our present day.

A week or more of no communications after a major terrorist attack could easily result in similar bands of outlaws right here in the United States.

Ask someone living in Texas or Arizona within 20 or 30 miles of the Mexican border what they need with assault weapons.

It is already happening.

Gun owners jokingly use the phrase Zombie Apocalypse in generic reference to any type of civil breakdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your thoughts. I know gun ownership is ingrained, I grew up there. But I think as with any other restrictive "for the greater good" legislation getting rid of assault riffles in the general population (I'd say handguns too) would eventually become as normal as wearing seat belts. I remember when seat belt legislation came in an a lot of people were mad including the car industry as I recall. But does anyone think twice now?

I hope you're right :) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

It is about freedom.

Freedom from tyranny.

If our government decides to start taking away our freedom, we will be suitably armed to defend that freedom.

More practically...

It doesn't require an all-out Doomsday to foresee the need for assault-style weapons.

Hurricane Katrina proved how quickly social order degenerates under catastrophic circumstances.

As mentioned earlier, most order was maintained by well-armed private citizens.

And with the high-tech terrorism that is developing, where terrorists are planning ways to disrupt our very way of life through destabilizing communications after an attack, days could easily turn into weeks before order (in the form of communications) could be restored.

You could easily find yourself having to defend your home and family against bands or groups of outlaws bent on savagery, either for survival (food and water) or just for savagery's sake.

People will mock these comments, but countries all over Africa already endure roaming hordes of outlaws in our present day.

A week or more of no communications after a major terrorist attack could easily result in similar bands of outlaws right here in the United States.

Ask someone living in Texas or Arizona within 20 or 30 miles of the Mexican border what they need with assault weapons.

It is already happening.

Gun owners jokingly use the phrase Zombie Apocalypse in generic reference to any type of civil breakdown.

That is what you believe and I'm not going to argue about it.

Of course there a lot of responsible gun owners but it only takes one incident like this to highlight how dangerous it is when people have a distorted view of reality and use their freedom to use guns for the sake of killing senselessly and give the others a bad name.

Obviously there is a heightened sense of paranoia and fear in the US and that is not good.

I hope none of those scenarios ever eventuate.

There is an old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

It is about freedom.

Freedom from tyranny.

If our government decides to start taking away our freedom, we will be suitably armed to defend that freedom.

More practically...

It doesn't require an all-out Doomsday to foresee the need for assault-style weapons.

Hurricane Katrina proved how quickly social order degenerates under catastrophic circumstances.

As mentioned earlier, most order was maintained by well-armed private citizens.

And with the high-tech terrorism that is developing, where terrorists are planning ways to disrupt our very way of life through destabilizing communications after an attack, days could easily turn into weeks before order (in the form of communications) could be restored.

You could easily find yourself having to defend your home and family against bands or groups of outlaws bent on savagery, either for survival (food and water) or just for savagery's sake.

People will mock these comments, but countries all over Africa already endure roaming hordes of outlaws in our present day.

A week or more of no communications after a major terrorist attack could easily result in similar bands of outlaws right here in the United States.

Ask someone living in Texas or Arizona within 20 or 30 miles of the Mexican border what they need with assault weapons.

It is already happening.

Gun owners jokingly use the phrase Zombie Apocalypse in generic reference to any type of civil breakdown.

You world sounds fun to live in. You trust no one it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In CBS's 60 Minutes poignant interview with Sally Cox, the Sandy Hook School nurse, the one question that was not asked by the dear interviewer, was (for the school nurse) "Do you wish there had been a gun on site that you could have used ? ? ?"

http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50137227n

We'd all like to know the answer to that question. All od us expect CBS and 60 Minutes, I suppose.

I think any of us, no matter how peace-loving, would have tried to take down down the killer with a gun, if one had been there to use.

The Chilling account:

http://en.wikipedia....School_shooting

Edited by The Rover
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate sounding so negative about the subject because the reality for me is that I don't have a problem with responsible people owning a gun. I just don't see how an assault weapon can be considered a good thing.

Since you seem like a very fair person I want give you the best straight forward answer to this that I can. But first as a gun owner and a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment right I will tell you why I don't currently own what many call an "assault rifle"; the same type of rifle used in the recent shooting. I don't own this rifle because I don't feel the I personally need it to defend myself or my home. I own several handguns and I also have shotguns and other rifles. Some of my guns are just smaller caliber target rifles and others are for hunting. But I currently feel that my personal defense needs are satisfied well enough by having a shotgun and two handguns at the ready to defend my home in the event an intruder attempted to enter and do me harm. In my situation a .223 caliber AR-15 or an AK-47 would have way too much "penetration". Being that I live in a suburban area there are other homes nearby which could possibly be struck by rounds going through the walls of my home, and therfore putting other people at risk. From a tactical stand point I only want the rounds I might have to fire at a subject to do damage to him. To stop him and whatever threat he is posing to me and mine. My handguns are loaded with rounds specifically designed to STOP an intruder with maximum damage and not pass on through walls and become lethal to others.

This is my personal opinon on that... based on my current defense needs as I see them. That could always change.

But this in not to say that I don't see where others may have, or do have a legitimate need for the type of rifle you call an "assault rifle". Let's say for example somebody lives in a rural area where the nearest law enforcement response might be 30 minutes away. What if that person needed to actually fend off an attacker(s) over several minutes? What if the terrain around that person's home was such that it made more sense to fire at the threat from a further distance? In that scenario this rifle makes perfect sense. In fact, if I lived in that type of location I might even want a .30 semi-automatic rifle for even more power. This would be a very sensible and legitimate reason.

But still another reason to own this type of rifle would be in the event of a civil insurrection like the one that occured 20 years ago in Los Angeles. In that situation many people in certain areas were completely without any police protection. Some Korean business owners you may recall actually had to defend their lives against criminals with these same high powered semi-automatic rifles. During the first few hours of those riots it was total anarchy and dozens of people were murdered, so I don't believe that anyone can look back on that situation and the argue that those people did not in that moment have a legitimate need for the kind of firepower that rifle has.

After the Japanese tsunami we did not see any civil disorder occur. But what if the same thing happened in Los Angeles, Detroit or Philadelphia? What if there was a disaster so widespread that food, fresh drinking water, electric power and then law enforcement were not availible for days or even weeks in those cities? I'd like to think that we would be like the Japanese were after their disaster. But I'm not too hopeful that would be guaranteed. But I don't believe I want to question anyone who feels the need to take whatever legal steps are availble to them to be prepared for what is very likely to occur given the circumstances I just mentioned.

I believe it's easy for some people outside of the United States, or even some people within for that matter, who live is safe places to have a perspective that does not see the need for these types of guns. I respect that perspective. And to be honest, if I lived in Japan or Switzerland, I don't think I would even need the guns that I currently own. But with all of that being said, I still believe that people who are not criminals, have no mental health issues, and who can qualify to own these types of guns, even if they are what you call "assault rifles" should be allowed to own them.

So let me ask you this: If during this recent spree shooting some citizen (not the police) just happened to have an "assault rifle" and was close enough to the school to run over and possibly kill the gunman before he made it to the classroom and killed those 20 children; would you even question 'why' he owned that type of gun? Even if he wasn't legally allowed to own it, would even care why he had it if he could have prevented or minimized this unspeakable act of evil?

I hope that answer helps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the 2nd Amendment: Several people have mentioned that when the 2nd Amendment was passed the technology for guns was basically limited to muzzle loading muskets that could at the very best only fire a couple of round per minute. That back then there were no "assault rifles" so the founding fathers would probably not have agreed to this provision if they knew then where the "technology" was headed.

However another way to look at that is like this: The founding fathers were willing to provide the people with same weapons technology that the regular Army had. They did not limit the people to just rocks and pointed sticks.

This very fact either speaks to the trust the founding fathers had in the average citizen. Or the fear they had for the very same government experiment that they were about to embark upon. In my opinion, their desire to seek a true balance of power was simply brilliant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You world sounds fun to live in. You trust no one it seems.

As I said, I knew the comments would be mocked.

Big surprise it's you, eh?

Actually, my world is great, I wouldn't trade it for any other place, and certainly not yours.

Doubtless, you feel the same way about your country.

In a country of 300 million, no, I don't trust everyone.

That would be rather naive.

But what I definitely DON'T trust is my elected administration to necessarily do the right thing.

They've already demonstrated a distinct tendency to assume they know better than I what's best for me, and what's in my best interests, even though that's not their function.

I'd be fairly surprised if you trusted anyone or any entity that was behaving contrary to their normal, accepted and established role.

So yeah, I have plenty of trust for my fellow man, but it isn't unconditional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun ownership/control is one on the most important issues in American politics today, and it's a shame that we can't have an intelligent debate about it on this forum without resorting to immature name-calling.

One member mentioned on here that London is like the US. Another member seems to think that the UK is a safe house for terrorists, with terrorist attacks occurring on a frequent basis. I can't express how wrong they are. Everywhere in the UK, I believe, is safer than most parts of the US (the most recent atrocity that sparked this debate happened in quiet and safe community). There are fewer terrorist attacks in the UK than there were in the 1970s or even the 1980s when the IRA was at its most active. Britain has one the best intelligence services in the world which keeps this country a safe place to live.

I have some experience of staying in America, albiet limited, but I'll share it with you anyway as I feel it's relevant. I have spent all my life, 34 years, living in the UK and I've never seen or heard a single gun, and I grew up in the countryside. In 1990, aged 12, I spent a month in the US. The night we arrived someone down the road to where we staying was shot dead in their home. I was shocked. The following week we did some shopping in, I think, Walmart and next to an aisle of cuddly toys there was a huge display of guns. I was appalled and disgusted.

I would like to go back to the US and have a more positive experience, and maybe, if the government successfully changes the laws on gun ownership, I will.

With regards to the issue of so-called assault rifles, I find it hard to believe that any sane government would make it legal to acquire such a weapon. They might as well legalise the sale of anthrax for human consumption.

I read in The Gurardian newspaper here that 85 people a day are killed by guns in the US and more than twice that number are injured by them. Some members here will probably point out that more people are killed in road traffic accidents, and that would be true. The point is they are 'accidents', rather than motivated violent attacks. Statistically you are far more likely to end up dead if you own a gun.

The second amendment in the Constitution, about the right to bear arms which has been widely debated on here, is intended to safeguard the people or the state, depending on how you interpret it, against a tyrannical government. The problem is left in the hands of the individual each person gets to define 'tyranny', and this threatens the democracy and freedom upon which America as a nation is built. Indeed, the whole purpose of government is so people can live unarmed, civilian lives and not live in a constant state of fear. I would recommend that some members here look up Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviathan'.

The US needs to understand the distinction between civil rights and human rights, and recognise that the latter are more important than the former.

Edited by Magic Fills the Air
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I knew the comments would be mocked.

Big surprise it's you, eh?

Actually, my world is great, I wouldn't trade it for any other place, and certainly not yours.

Doubtless, you feel the same way about your country.

In a country of 300 million, no, I don't trust everyone.

That would be rather naive.

But what I definitely DON'T trust is my elected administration to necessarily do the right thing.

They've already demonstrated a distinct tendency to assume they know better than I what's best for me, and what's in my best interests, even though that's not their function.

I'd be fairly surprised if you trusted anyone or any entity that was behaving contrary to their normal, accepted and established role.

So yeah, I have plenty of trust for my fellow man, but it isn't unconditional.

I bet there are North Koreans less paranoid than you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun ownership/control is one on the most important issues in American politics today, and it's a shame that we can't have an intelligent debate about it on this forum without resorting to immature name-calling.

One member mentioned on here that London is like the US. Another member seems to think that the UK is a safe house for terrorists, with terrorist attacks occurring on a frequent basis. I can't express how wrong they are. Everywhere in the UK, I believe, is safer than most parts of the US (the most recent atrocity that sparked this debate happened in quiet and safe community). There are fewer terrorist attacks in the UK than there were in the 1970s or even the 1980s when the IRA was at its most active. Britain has one the best intelligence services in the world which keeps this country a safe place to live.

I have some experience of staying in America, albiet limited, but I'll share it with you anyway as I feel it's relevant. I have spent all my life, 34 years, living in the UK and I've never seen or heard a single gun, and I grew up in the countryside. In 1990, aged 12, I spent a month in the US. The night we arrived someone down the road to where we staying was shot dead in their home. I was shocked. The following week we did some shopping in, I think, Walmart and next to an aisle of cuddly toys there was a huge display of guns. I was appalled and disgusted.

I would like to go back to the US and have a more positive experience, and maybe, if the government successfully changes the laws on gun ownership, I will.

With regards to the issue of so-called assault rifles, I find it hard to believe that any sane government would make it legal to acquire such a weapon. They might as well legalise the sale of anthrax for human consumption.

I read in The Gurardian newspaper here that 85 people a day are killed by guns in the US and more than twice that number are injured by them. Some members here will probably point out that more people are killed in road traffic accidents, and that would be true. The point is they are 'accidents', rather than motivated violent attacks. Statistically you are far more likely to end up dead if you own a gun.

The second amendment in the Constitution, about the right to bear arms which has been widely debated on here, is intended to safeguard the people or the state, depending on how you interpret it, against a tyrannical government. The problem is left in the hands of the individual each person gets to define 'tyranny', and this threatens the democracy and freedom upon which America as a nation is built. Indeed, the whole purpose of government is so people can live unarmed, civilian lives and not live in a constant state of fear. I would recommend that some members here look up Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviathan'.

The US needs to understand the distinction between civil rights and human rights, and recognise that the latter are more important than the former.

Well, that certainly wasn't disdainful or preachy.

No wonder we broke away to form our own country.

I'm always struck by the irony of people calling out the US about human rights, and say nothing about places like Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Sudan, Syria, and I'll get tired of typing all the countries who have true issues concerning human rights.

The United States is one of the most, if not the most, civilized countries in the world.

Incidents like this one notwithstanding, when you take into consideration the size of our population, the vastness of ethnic and racial diversity of that population, the amount of liberty we have, and the amount of overall good we contribute back to the world, we are easily the most civilized nation on earth.

It's much easier to have harmony when the ethnic and racial diversity of a nation is relatively low, as in many Asian countries.

Tangential Analogy Alert!

The reason Mac computers are known for being more stable than their Windows counterparts is because Apple uses proprietary software, they design practically every program that runs on the Mac.

Whereas Windows must accommodate a practically infinite number of third-party programs and applications, with compatibility issues making it much more susceptible to conflict and crashes.

Such is the case with countries like Singapore, or Japan, or South Korea.

The are the Mac nations of the world, while the United States is the Windows of the world.

END Tangential Analogy Alert!

This is what makes the United States the most civilized nation on earth.

We have an infinitely more diverse yet homogenous society than most any other on earth, and there's a whole lot of us, and we still make it work.

So all of your preachy suggestions and comments are taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you know? D-bag.

Oh aren't you a sweet talking devil to people. Such class, such good manners. You seem match the above statement too.

One liner insults, your education served you well. That was sarcasm in case you were not clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...