One More Massacre

Raees wrote: PrintSmith, your chances of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun in the U.S. are pretty good. Your chances of "being the subjects of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government" are not even calculable.

The reason that I have a better (though slim) chance of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun than I do living as the subject of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government lies in the fact that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. Without that protection, I have a greater possibility of being subjugated to a despotic and tyrannical government than I do being harmed by a gun. I'd rather the former be the condition under which I live than the latter.

Oh, is he off on that again...Here, let me help:
Oooo.... Break out the check-off list:

regressives - check
corrupt oligarchy - check (except that the corrupt oligarchy was created by the Bushies)
oppressive - check
despotism - check
tyranny - check
usurpation - check
seize power - check
"abolished by force of arms" - check
"general government"
"plenary power"

You forgot:

socialist
Statist



...and all the other usual trigger words of the Sovereign Citizen / Federalist / Original Intent / Constitution-worship bullsh*t checklist...

You're slipping again...

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Once again, I offer this post on a blog that appleannie offered in a previous post. Goes directly to what everyone seems so intent on doing - disproving everyone else's opinions about guns and gun control: http://www.stonekettle.com/

Again, I believe our focus needs to be on those who lost loved ones and those who've had loved ones injured before we descend into discussions and arguments about gun control and banning guns. Right now it doesn't make one iota of difference one way or the other. Just my opinion.

TEACH PEACE!

If you don't want to participate in the discussion others are having on this subject, or feel that it is the proper time for you to be involved in it, then I respectfully suggest you follow your heart's desires and refrain from participating at this time. There are those who wish to have this discussion at this time and you should be respectful of their desire to do so whether you agree that it is the proper time and place or not. If you wish to focus your energy on those that have had their loved ones injured or killed to the exclusion of this discussion at this time, that is your choice to make, we understand, and we'll be here when you are ready to have this discussion. I believe that each of us has the capability of discerning where our focus is, and ought to be, for ourselves without anyone else thinking that they know where it is and where it ought to be for us.

Thank you PS for that thoughtful and provocative rebuke. It's not that I don't "want to participate" in the discussion. Nor is it that I feel it isn't "the proper time for you (me) to be involved in it". You can have any kind of discussion you want. It's pretty obvious to me you might be one of those "talkers" instead of "listeners". All I was asking is that people in general show some respect. Give the families and their loved ones their dignity. If you don't want to do that, then I guess the words are "have at each other". I hope you ALL win your arguments (without coming to blows or using weapons of choice, of course). TEACH PEACE!

Science Chic wrote: <

---

READ THAT!!!!![/color]

I did - and what I came away with was that it was written by someone who feels that by enacting more legislation something bad like this can be stopped. What good would a waiting period have done SC? The madman started planning for this months ago. If the law had been he had to wait two weeks or a month to take possession of his firearms are you really thinking that this would have stopped him? Are we really, seriously, going to have someone make an appointment with a mental health professional every time they wish to purchase a gun to make sure that they have at least a thin tether to reality first?

I noticed that the biggest weapon in that blogger's arsenal is ridicule of others - Alinsky would be very proud of that effort. That piece is simply wasted bandwidth. Legislation whose goal is a perception of security is a waste of everyone's time, effort and treasure. Waiting periods and psych exams won't stop the guns sold to those of solid character and sound mind from being stolen from them by those of poor character and unsound mind. Laws won't protect anyone from what happened last Friday morning from happening again. Pass as many of them as you want, even an outright ban on all guns that aren't black powder muzzle loaders won't stop it from happening again and again and again.

You can't undo the advances of technology SC. What happens when you cram too much of something into too small a space is never going to be a good thing. This madman went off the rails somewhere along the line, that much is clear. Is he crazy or crazy like a fox? Do you think he could have gotten the same stuff on the street that he did online? Over 95% of guns used in criminal activity are obtained in violation of the laws. Is making gun ownership a greater obstacle for the 99.9% of the citizens who obtain their guns in a lawful manner going to make a noticeable dent in the remaining 5%? I don't think so either.

Mexico has much stricter gun laws than the US, civvies wouldn't be allowed to own any of those guns, magazines, or even ammunition, yet they have a much higher murder rate.

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: PrintSmith, your chances of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun in the U.S. are pretty good. Your chances of "being the subjects of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government" are not even calculable.

The reason that I have a better (though slim) chance of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun than I do living as the subject of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government lies in the fact that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. Without that protection, I have a greater possibility of being subjugated to a despotic and tyrannical government than I do being harmed by a gun. I'd rather the former be the condition under which I live than the latter.

A bunch of yahoos with guns would be no match for an invading military force.

And Fred, Canada has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. but has 1/5 the murder rate.

ZHawke wrote: Thank you PS for that thoughtful and provocative rebuke. It's not that I don't "want to participate" in the discussion. Nor is it that I feel it isn't "the proper time for you (me) to be involved in it". You can have any kind of discussion you want. It's pretty obvious to me you might be one of those "talkers" instead of "listeners". All I was asking is that people in general show some respect. Give the families and their loved ones their dignity. If you don't want to do that, then I guess the words are "have at each other". I hope you ALL win your arguments (without coming to blows or using weapons of choice, of course). TEACH PEACE!

Near as I can tell, no one is being disrespectful of anyone who is a victim of what happened last Friday morning Z. What's got your underwear in a bunch is that you feel that those of us involved in this discussion aren't as focused as we ought to be on those who have suffered as a result of what occurred. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of those of us who are participating in this thread. I'm terribly sorry that your feelings were hurt when it was politely suggested to you that perhaps you should consider that we are a better judge of what is appropriate for us and what our focus is and ought to be at this time than you are, truly I am.

To paraphrase that darling of the left, Jon Stewart, from his show, which is broadcast coast to coast every night of the week, what you are suggesting is that it's too soon to have a discussion on the subject of gun control - that there should be a waiting period for that? Sorry Z - but the folks being disrespectful of the dignity of the victims and their families are the ones who are looking not to let this current crisis go to waste in the hopes that they can get something done that they might not otherwise be able to do. Perhaps your comments might be more appropriately directed at the editorial staff of the Denver Post or in a note to Mayor Bloomberg.

Raees wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: PrintSmith, your chances of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun in the U.S. are pretty good. Your chances of "being the subjects of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government" are not even calculable.

The reason that I have a better (though slim) chance of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun than I do living as the subject of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government lies in the fact that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. Without that protection, I have a greater possibility of being subjugated to a despotic and tyrannical government than I do being harmed by a gun. I'd rather the former be the condition under which I live than the latter.

A bunch of yahoos with guns would be no match for an invading military force.

And Fred, Canada has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. but has 1/5 the murder rate.

And Canada also had its own mass casualty shooting not too long ago. So much for stricter gun laws being able to stop incidents like this from happening.

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: PrintSmith, your chances of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun in the U.S. are pretty good. Your chances of "being the subjects of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government" are not even calculable.

The reason that I have a better (though slim) chance of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun than I do living as the subject of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government lies in the fact that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. Without that protection, I have a greater possibility of being subjugated to a despotic and tyrannical government than I do being harmed by a gun. I'd rather the former be the condition under which I live than the latter.

A bunch of yahoos with guns would be no match for an invading military force.

And Fred, Canada has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. but has 1/5 the murder rate.

And Canada also had its own mass casualty shooting not too long ago. So much for stricter gun laws being able to stop incidents like this from happening.

So Canada's one mass casualty shooting is equal to the dozens in the U.S.? Perhaps stricter gun laws helped cut down on the the number of incidents in Canada.

Mass casualty shooting in Canada: two killed. That's a typical Saturday night in Aurora.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Thank you PS for that thoughtful and provocative rebuke. It's not that I don't "want to participate" in the discussion. Nor is it that I feel it isn't "the proper time for you (me) to be involved in it". You can have any kind of discussion you want. It's pretty obvious to me you might be one of those "talkers" instead of "listeners". All I was asking is that people in general show some respect. Give the families and their loved ones their dignity. If you don't want to do that, then I guess the words are "have at each other". I hope you ALL win your arguments (without coming to blows or using weapons of choice, of course). TEACH PEACE!

Near as I can tell, no one is being disrespectful of anyone who is a victim of what happened last Friday morning Z. What's got your underwear in a bunch is that you feel that those of us involved in this discussion aren't as focused as we ought to be on those who have suffered as a result of what occurred. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of those of us who are participating in this thread. I'm terribly sorry that your feelings were hurt when it was politely suggested to you that perhaps you should consider that we are a better judge of what is appropriate for us and what our focus is and ought to be at this time than you are, truly I am.

To paraphrase that darling of the left, Jon Stewart, from his show, which is broadcast coast to coast every night of the week, what you are suggesting is that it's too soon to have a discussion on the subject of gun control - that there should be a waiting period for that? Sorry Z - but the folks being disrespectful of the dignity of the victims and their families are the ones who are looking not to let this current crisis go to waste in the hopes that they can get something done that they might not otherwise be able to do. Perhaps your comments might be more appropriately directed at the editorial staff of the Denver Post or in a note to Mayor Bloomberg.

And, PS, near as I can tell I did not in any way shape or form indicate in any way shape or form that anyone in this thread is being disrespectful of anyone who is a victim of what happened last Friday morning. What I am trying to say is maybe we should all try to give it a rest until the dust has settled a little bit. If you choose to continue your discussion, and if everyone else chooses to continue their discussions, I understand. In fact, I also know there is absolutely nothing whatsoever I can do about that. There is a huge difference between "telling" people to back off and "asking" them to do so. All I'm doing is asking.

The problem with your posit (at least to me) is that you seem to presume hay needs to be made while it's still green and the sun is still shining. That's what I've heard so many times over and over following each of these types of tragedies. it literally turns my stomach. I'd rather we try our best to be proactive over the long term rather than reactive over the short term while the hay is still green and the sun is still shining. Truth is the hay is still hay, no matter how green it might be or how brightly the sun might be shining.

TEACH PEACE!