| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
The Circus in Tucson |
|
|
Daddy Goose38 Member
since 2010-09-04
Posts 430obama's a rice paper tiger |
UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Daddy Goose38 - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Jaime, it is so very sad that politics have outcomes such as Tucson...and this, of course, was not the first. What needs to be remembered, is that we, as people of a great nation, can make this all better. It starts, as always, with Prayer...and then, with conviction.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Definitely convictions! |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
This whole thing has my brain spinning in my skull... While I do not agree with most things Rep. Gifford says, she- from most things I saw before this, and most tings I have heard since- had strong belief in her thoughts, and was not a political lackey that went lockstep with her party. There are far too many in government (from both parties) who do as they are told and do not stand up for themselves or their constituents. The biggest thing that gets my blood boiling is the fact that the sheriff was on TV placing political blame, as have more than one in Congress and in the news... The law enforcement community in Tucson had dealt with him before for making threats (not against the Congresswoman) and knows that he was not a loyal member of EITHER political party, or any true political philosophy... and yet, there are members of the political scene who are using this to make cheap political points and to attempt to get their names in the papers. I wonder if any of them have 9 year old granddaughters? Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Prayer and truth. And better mental health policies. It is virtually impossible to commit an adult with serious and obvious mental disturbances until they prove they are a danger to themselves and others by engaging in a massacre. Five reported death threats over the past couple of years should have been enough to have someone committed. I don't see that politics, from either side of the aisle, played a role in this tragedy. Politics didn't come into play until about 30 minutes after the fact when the media, the sheriff and some on the left started playing the blame game before any information on the shooter was even known. Truly a sad state of affairs. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
I just wonder which dipstick allowed him to have a gun, given everything known about him? Surely there has to be something seriously wrong with a gun law that allows someone to legally own a firearm who clearly shouldn't be handling anything sharper than a sponge without supervision. It's a disaster waiting to happen, and it will, again and again and people will be shocked when it does. They'll try to find any possible reasons, however remote, to explain how it could happen while conveniently ignoring the obvious. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
There's nothing wrong with the law, Uncas. He passed the required FBI background check when he purchased his weapon. Perhaps if the Sheriff had done his job and actually arrested Loughner a time or two for the various death threats that he had made he wouldn't have passed the background check and some people may be alive today who now aren't. But if he wanted a gun bad enough he would have found a way to get one, most likely on the blackmarket. That's where most criminals get them anyway. Then again, he may have had a harder time going that route, being so severely mentally ill. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Then the law, and the background checks are obviously flawed Denise - he was mentally unstable and the law allowed him to have a gun. The alternative is to accept that there's nothing wrong with a law that allows mentally unstable people to possess firearm - that's a big stretch Denise. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The FBI can't be mind readers, Uncas. If nothing of a serious nature shows up on his police record because there is nothing of a violent nature documented there, and he is therefore able to purchase a gun in one of his increasingly rare lucid moments when he appeared normal to the gun store clerk, how is that the fault of the law or the background check process? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
It's a failure because it happened Denise. Not once, not twice but numerous times, this is just one example. We can shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, stuff happens, it's nobody's fault" or we can introduce measures that make it less likely to happen again. We change the standards when toy manufacturers make unsafe toys that meet current standards and we change food safety laws when food manufacturers supply unfit food that doesn't breach current food laws. Yet every time a mentally unstable person buys a gun legally under the current law and goes postal we shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, stuff happens, what can you do". I own guns, legally, under some pretty restrictive gun laws and I had to jump through a whole slew of hoops before I was granted a license, which included providing documented evidence of my character and mental stability. I have to reapply every 5 years and jump through the same hoops all over again and my license can be rescinded at any point on a temporary or permanent basis. Does it stop people being shot by someone holding legally held guns? Absolutely not, but it definitely reduces the chance of it happening and therefore the number of incidences. Change the law to reduce the failures, law abiding and responsible folk get to own guns and mentally unstable individuals don't. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm curious, Uncas. What documentation does one provide showing mental stability? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
First you fill out a declaration regarding your mental history and sign it. Then 2 referees (of sound character) who've known you for at least two years counter sign to say that the details supplied are correct. Finally you sign a waiver that allows the licensing authority (the local Constabulary) to ask your doctor to provide verification of your medical history. Providing false information is an offence and applicable to all signatories. The application form including guidance is here in case I missed anything: http://www.northumbria.police.uk/Images/FIrearm%20Application%20Form_tcm4-11687.pdf |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I see. Obviously signing a declaration would be no proof of anything since a person trying to evade discovery would lie anyway. Two references would have to sign it...."mentally sound" is specified there, which would mean, I suppose, that they would have to be investigated also to prove their sound character..which may require two references of theirs...which would need to be investigated..which would need to provide....sounds like that could go on forever! Allowing your doctor to provide medical history? If one is mentally unbalanced and has not been diagnosed with it or treated, that wouldn't be much help. Don't get me wrong. I applaud any and all investigations that could keep guns out of mentally imbalanced hands. I just point out how difficult it really is on a large scale. It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback with the should-haves and could-haves. Look how much of that was done convering 9-11. There is real and there is realistic. I personally favor incredibly stringent rules on gun purchases...and still I would acknowledge that, in spite of such, guns would still wind up in lunatic hands. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Sure, you could get counter signatories ad infinitum as you suggested but that would be stupid, not to mention unworkable. Fortunately the gun law that form relates to was designed to be both thorough enough to reduce legally held firearms being used inappropriately, while at the same time being practical in the real world. It's not perfect but it's better than the law in Arizona. The alternative to changing the gun law is to carry on selling guns to 18 year olds without any question, simply because the current law says you can. Then shrugging your shoulders and rolling out the old "Oh well, stuff happens, it's nobody's fault" mantra when it all goes pear shaped. Perfection is a great goal, but just because you might not make it is no excuse to do nothing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We agree. One needs to do what one can and no system is perfect. Those who say that an incident such as the recent one wouldn't have happened with more stringent rules in place are not correct but, in other future instances they could be. One can only try... |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
I agree 100% with that. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Craig, I would be delighted to hear that England never has a legally registered firearm used inappropriately, but I think we both know that isn't true. The slew of hoops you had to jump through can, at best, reduce those incidents, not eliminate them. Add a few more hoops and you might reduce them even more. Is that what you're advocating? The inevitable result, of course, is the abolishment of legally owned firearms. In this country, the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Just like free speech and the right to worship without interference. The thing about rights is that there's always someone somewhere who will abuse them. That's the price we pay. The only way to ever eliminate the abuse, I believe, is to eliminate the freedom. Again, we're talking about nothing less than the abolishment of legally owned firearms. Personally, I might be swayed by an argument that the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be a right any more. I'm honestly not sure. But, so long as it IS a right, I'm against just about any limitation being imposed on it. People willing to jump through a slew of hoops to buy a weapon should, I think, ask themselves if they're equally willing to jump through hoops to go to a church of their own choosing or to speak out against government policies they don't like. Erosion of rights is a cliché, but it's also a synonym for rights we've allowed others to limit. That snowball at the top of the mountain can too easily become an avalanche. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “ According to a 2007 Justice Department study cited by Torrey, the mentally ill represent 45 percent of all federal prisoners, 56 percent of state prisoners, and 64 percent of local prisoners. Clearing out state mental hospitals was sold as a compassionate policy during the 1960s and 1970s. Yet the “reforms” of that era left behind a grisly trail of human wreckage.” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257058/lesson-loughner-editors But most "mentally ill" don't go out and kill people. This as with Fort Hood was a case of a lot of people for one reason or another letting it slide or looking the other way. . |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
But all Americans don't have a right to bear arms Ron. That right, like every other right, is restricted by common sense rules and regulationss enacted into law. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Unless of course you're deemed too young, a convicted criminal or, quite rightly, mentally unstable. Those common sense restrictions already exist, changing the law to ensure that they're stringently enforced doesn't curtail or diminish anybody's rights one iota. In fact, it could be argued that it acts to ensure another of your rights - the one that mentions life and liberty. Would any of this stop people from being killed? No. Whatever hoops are put in place can be circumvented and I'd be a fool to argue otherwise, but its reasonable to assume that it may stop some incidents. Even if it stopped one single solitary incident then if the only cost as a law abiding gun owner is that I have to jump through a few hoops I think it's worth it. Are tighter controls a slippery slope to a total ban? I don't think that's as inevitable as you make out. The UK has some of the strictest gun control legislation in the world but even here, were gun owners are a minority voice, I can't see a total ban being a viable possibility. Shooting for sport is too entrenched in the fabric of our society for any political party to consider a total ban. Should the right to bear arms be removed? It's an interesting question. I think I'd have to say yes, I can see an argument for giving up my guns that doesn't entail prying them from my cold dead hands. Can I keep my bows though?  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: They must be underestimating those numbers, John. By my estimate, the percentage of mentally ill people in this country is much higher than that. Indeed, sometimes I think the only completely sane person I know is me. Other times, I'm not so sure about me. 'Course, I guess different people have different definitions of mentally ill? And therein lies the danger. quote: Would you argue that freedom of religion or speech should be similarly limited, Craig? quote: Isn't that the same argument we've been hearing ever since 911? That freedom is less important than security? Don't get me wrong. Pragmatically, I know there will always be necessary limitations on the freedoms our forefathers (in both countries) fought and died to preserve for us. Idealistically, however, I think we need to question every and any limitation proposed, fighting it tooth and nail right up to the moment it becomes law. And sometimes beyond. Freedom is too fragile, and far too precious, to ever take for granted. I firmly believe that if you're not actively fighting for your freedom then you're already in the process of losing it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Yes. Where's my nuke? I want my nuke! I'm not really trying to play gotcha Ron, it's just not as simplistic an argument as a right is a right is a right. And I know that you know that. As I've stated many times; I believe it is an absolute right for every citizen to own a single-shot, muzzle loaded, ball shooter -- the technology that was available at the time of the signing of the 2nd Amendment into law. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Actually, Reb, I believe if we were to agree that the right to bear arms should remain in the Bill of Rights, you should indeed be allowed your nuke. Assuming, of course, you could afford it? Not everyone three hundred years ago had a single-shot, muzzle loaded ball shooter, either. It has always been clear, at least to me, that the Bill of Rights was added to the American Constitution at the insistence of men who very much didn't trust government. They obviously were also men prepared to violently oppose any government they felt had wandered too far down the path of tyranny. The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, I think, is essentially the right to have a fighting chance against our own government should it ever come to that. That's an over-simplification, I know (State militia versus Federal army is probably closer to what they foresaw), but I honestly don't think it's too far off the mark. The limitations we've already allowed on our right to bear arms has pretty much circumvented the Founders' intent. You can't have an automatic weapon, you can't have a tank, and yea, they seriously frown on anyone stockpiling their own nukes. Those State militias, of course, have become our national army, a.k.a. the National Guard. The right to pose a serious threat to tyranny has devolved into the right to shoot targets and poor, helpless little animals. I really don't think that's what the Founders intended. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
In an overhwhelmed society where people are full of depressions, anxieties, addictions, obsessions, etc and "losing it", short-term or long-term, the last thing that should be easy or a special "right" to get is guns, making all our instabilities even more dangerous when people can do far more damage more quickly and efficiently through a gun. Sure, the law can allow people to have and use guns to a limited extent, but I don't think that should mean making them easy and convenient, allowing guns and/or ammunition to be sold at common stores such as Walmart. The restrictions on ownership should be very strict, and the locations of where guns are bought and sold, even stricter, because it is too dangerous for them not to be. On the other hand though, I think places where guns can be used recreationally (such as a shooting range) should have their own guns, owned by the facility, but not by any specific individual. Therefore, if people have difficulty finding guns to buy (which they should in, my opinion) they shouldn't have any difficulty getting a gun to use at a recreational facility: there would already be guns there, but they would be dependant on going to the facility to use it. No one would need or be allowed to take any guns home with them at the end of the day. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: No Ron, I'd argue that they already are. There are caveats placed on all rights. If you don't believe me try standing outside your local sheriff's office exercising your right to freely speak about the need for the armed resistance of the fascist police force and see how long your freedom lasts. You're right to free speech is restricted by the common sense rule that you can't freely incite violence. Freedom of religion? Devil worshipers can't sacrifice virgins Ron, while Christians witch finders are swelling the ranks of the unemployed. Right now the Westboro Baptist's might also question how free they are to exercise their rights, to both freedom of religion and speech. All rights have limits, you can argue that mentally unstable individuals should have the right to bear arms, but society has decided that they shouldn't. If we all agree that they shouldn't doesn't it make sense to do everything practically possible to ensure that they don't? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Essorant, you're simply arguing, as did Uncas, that freedom is less important than security. As Ben Franklin said 300 years ago, that course inevitably leads to a loss of both. As to your suggestion, I'm guessing you are not an active shooting enthusiast? I would no sooner want to use an off-the-shelf weapon than I would use a bowling alley's in-house ball. It would almost be like borrowing a friend's jock strap. Uncas, I think you're analogies are flawed. To address just one example you posted, that of the hypothetical sheriff, you're not talking about freedom of speech so much as the abuse of that freedom. Your other analogies follow suit. We don't restrict the rights of people standing outside their sheriff's office, we don't restrict the rights of devil worshippers or Christians, rather we restrict what people can do with the rights they have. That's a far cry from making everyone fill out a bunch of paperwork or get testimonies from their doctor and a few friends before they're allowed to speak their mind or go to church. If you want to restrict what people can DO with their legally owned firearms, that's a somewhat different discussion, I think. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
One of the things I've always admired about you Ron is your ability to discuss in the abstract. So, as long as we're in the abstract let's go there: 1. Rupert Murdoch and George Soros both own nuclear arsenals. Which one of them gets to decide if the government has become tyrannical? 2. If one of them drops a nuke on Washington, thereby murdering millions of people -- did the government fail in its' obligation to provide for the common defense? Or lets bring it back down to Earth and talk about the issue at hand. Tuscon Tea Party leader Trent Humphries says that it's Gifford's own fault getting shot for appearing in a public venue. 3. If we can't have free and open interaction with our elected representatives, and they with us, without having to go through stringent security measures (which would be of dubious efficacy) doesn't that place limits on our constitutional right to representation? And, 4. Wasn't Loughner merely exercising his implied right to use his second amendment solution against a government he interpreted -- in his own disturbed mind -- as being unconstitutional? or; 5. Didn't the Whiskey Rebellion establish that you don't get to just take up arms against the government if you disagree with a policy here or a tax there? Thereby nullifying any notion that the second amendment exists to empower the people against the government? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
People have the right to free speech - but there are restrictions on the types of speech. People have the right practice their religion - but there are restrictions on the types of practices. People have the right to bear arms - but there are restrictions on the type of arms you can bear. For mentally disturbed individuals, to protect themselves and others, that restriction is firearms. You can argue in favour of a universal right to bear arms Ron but the reality is it doesn't exist, it never really did. Perhaps more importantly it never could exist, we'd have to remove the restrictions on kids, criminals and the mentally disturbed for that to become a reality and, I'm guessing here, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting. Would a law that made it less likely for a kid, a criminal or a mentally disturbed person to get their hands on a firearm be such a bad thing? How could such a law remove or diminish a right that they never had in the first place? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Is the question that we need more rules or that we need to enforce the ones we have? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Why not bring back the assault weapons ban Mike? Which included a restriction on magazine size -- the most shots Loughner would have been able to get off before being tackled (by people without any arms) would have been 10 instead of 30. A nine-year-old might still be alive if it hadn't been allowed to lapse. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm sorry, LR. Was there an answer to my question in that response? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As far as the magazine size goes, anyone even vaguely familiar with firearms could pop out and insert a clip in 2 seconds and keep firing. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Raw Story's Headline mischaracterized Humphries statements, L.R. No surprise, I suppose. His point was that he didn't think that Giffords truly thought that Palin's 'crosshairs' map (practiced by both sides, by the way...Bob Beckel said that he created the first 'target map' eons ago) was actually fomenting an atmosphere of danger, but rather viewed her stated concern over it as political gamesmanship, otherwise she would not have appeared at a public event without a security detail if she were truly concerned. Far different than their headline, don't you think? The media and the left in general are missing the point, though. There is no reason to blame anyone other than the shooter. He wasn't a right-wing lunatic. His morbid fascination with Giffords dates back to 2007, prior to Palin's entry onto the national stage and prior to the formation of any of the Tea Party groups. That should end all their finger pointing at them. I also don't see the Tea Party Express's request for donations to help fight the slanders as profiting off of the tragedy. It is merely an attempt to raise the funds to fight back effectively against the smears being hurled by the left. The left creates the situation and then continues to smear even any attempt to defend against the situation that they created. For a true display of profiteering off of the tragedy, no one needs to look any further than the Obama 2012 kick-off campaign...otherwise known as the Arizona Memorial Service. http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=14413 Truly profane. They have no shame and not a shred of common decency. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm sure he thought so, Reb. Just as Jefferson and Washington thought so in 1776. And Robert E. Lee in 1861. History, of course, is still written by the winners. How do you stop the Loughners and the Lees, though, without also stopping the Jefferesons and the Washingtons? quote: It existed in 1776, Uncas. For a little while. quote: Would a law that made it less likely for a misinformed idiot to badmouth our heroes, be they politicians or warriors or priests, be such a bad thing? How about a law to prevent the uneducated masses from worshiping false gods? We can always find a thousand justifications for limiting someone else's freedom, Craig. And every time we allow it we put our own freedoms at risk. Of the three groups you cite, Uncas, only one is not at the whim of authority. A criminal is anyone your government says is a criminal. A mentally disturbed person is, well, pretty much all of us. Personally, I think the misinformed idiots and uneducated masses are far greater threats. Don't you? There are already laws against killing other people. At least in most states, I think? Texas might be an exception? If someone is willing to break those laws I just don't see how adding more laws is going to deter them. quote: I'm sorry, Denise, but that kind of hyperbole is out of place in any rational discussion. It does nothing but jeopardize your own credibility. There are plenty of legitimate complaints that can be lodged against our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, without resorting to demonizing them. They are people, Denise, most of them damn good people with the best of intentions. Yea, those good intentions are paving the way to Hell, but the road workers are all human beings, not evil devils. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I find little decency in passing out "Together We Thrive" t-shirts at a supposed memorial service. The victims of the shooting didn't thrive too well...and they were supposed to be the subjects of the memorial, I thought. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I wasn't speaking of our public servents who have the best of intentions, Ron, only the people who chose to use a memorial service as a political rally. But yes, I agree, they are not evil devils. They are human beings, but human beings whose actions depicted a thoughtless lack of decorum at what was supposed to be a memorial service for the dead, not a venue for handing out t-shirts with a retread slogan from the 2008 campaign. Were there no adults in charge of the event to signal to the attendees not to whoop, holler and cat-call, even as the names of the dead were being read? It was a shameful display. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
Even in 1776 the right to bear arms wasn't universal Ron, it was restricted by state laws which were almost carbon copies of English law. In fact the right to bear arms itself was effectively the same right granted under the English Bill of rights of 1689 which was adopted by Congress as an interim solution until the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Up until the second amendment in 1791 an American's right to bear arms was the same as an Englishman's, here described by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1776): "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." Balladeer, quote: I can't speak for others but I'm advocating enforcing the laws that are already in place, unfortunately that may mean changing the law itself to stipulate the process by which enforcement is achieved. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Only if your question was rhetorical. Or literal. quote: Why should that matter Denise? quote: And yet, it was adequate time for a madman with a gun to be subdued -- by a little old lady. But, ok, by your logic -- since it takes so little time to change clips -- a 10 round clip should be just fine! Right? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Good grief, if I had a dollar for every time an American said "carrying a gun is my Constitutional Right" I'd be a multi billionaire. What's wrong with you? Can't you grow up, and if you have to play at being cowboys and red indians use a pea shooter? Hellooooo! The 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791: - before the Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol and the ability to cut down 10's of innocents in seconds - before millions of you lived in crowded cities - before therapists were Gods - when the right wing religious nut cases had their work cut out just to stay alive - when macho hunters actually hunted to survive instead of being fat couch potatoes rolling out in their 4 x 4's each weekend to murder squirrels - when you actually had to kick out the vile Brits, the impertinent Red Skins, and a few of your own hell raising compatriots - when James Madison had some valid reasons for encouraging citizens to have guns, reasons which vanished years ago - when "Rights" were respected, cherished and deserved, instead of being baubles pulled out with a petulant flourish by spoiled children every time their toys are taken away Harsh? Humm, maybe. But for all the talk of restrictions and bans, there's ultimately only one solution to this, and that's for adults to behave as adults and to admit that guns are made for one purpose and one alone - to maim and kill. Then go teach your kids that to maim and kill is a bad thing, and to hate and fear guns. Above all teach them the truth, that possession of a gun is a shameful and degrading thing. Then maybe in a few generations there might be a degree of sanity again. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: By paying attention? I would first ask for a review of the topic of Maj. Nidal Hassan, and then ask -- Is it a Duck? quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: quote: |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Okay, you didn't like it. Why not say that instead of blowing it up into something much, much worse? Why not berate what was done instead of ending your post with a gross exaggeration of the people who did it? When push comes to shove, it's just one more example of people believing the end justifies the means. One of COUNTLESS recent examples, at least half of which have been perpetrated by those on your side of the aisle, Denise. quote: In 1776, Uncas, there weren't any state laws because there weren't yet any states. Three hundred years later, the state laws STILL don't supercede the Constitution. Doesn't matter, though, because even though we're not exactly the Supreme Court, my point was meant to reference the intent of the Founders. I'm sure, like you, they never meant for firearms to be supplied to children, criminals, or the insane, but unlike you, they didn't write that into the Constitution. Why? Perhaps because they realized that limitations on freedoms will ALWAYS be abused by a government sooner or later. quote: And the bottom line, Moonbeam, is that it's still in the U.S. Constitution in 2011. You don't like it? Lobby for an amendment to have it changed. It's happened before (the 18th amendment) and I sincerely hope to see it happen again. So long as the right to bear arms stands on a par with free speech and the other Constitution rights, however, it needs to be protected from people who believe not liking something gives them the right to act as if that something doesn't exist. quote: Again, Reb . . . you're arguing that freedom is less important than security. Every time a loony pops out of the woodwork people start yelling that it should be easier to lock up the loonies so bad stuff can't happen. The same exact thing happens when a patently guilty man walks out of a court room free because of some legal technicality. Things like that just shouldn't happen. But they have to happen in a free society where everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The minute we make it easy to lock up the loony or the guilty, we also make it easy to lock up our brothers, our sisters, our children. I think on some subconscious level, we visualize ourselves personally closing the cell door on the bad guy and locking it so they never hurt anyone ever again. The trouble with that visage is that we don't hold the keys. Someone else does. And frankly, guys, we can't trust that someone else to always get it right. Worse, we would be utter fools to believe they would at least always try. So we erect legal barriers. The barriers aren't there to protect the loony or the guilty. They're there to protect the innocent. They're there to protect you and me. quote: Thanks, Reb, for the research. Ultimately, though, I don't think it should matter whether it was true or not. Cooked up by the White House? Sorry, but the White House doesn't represent the Democratic party. It represents America. People aren't under any obligation to LIKE the way their country responds to tragedy, any more than they're obligated to like their country at all, but it makes little sense to pretend it's NOT their country. President Obama didn't speak at the memorial as the leader of a political party. He spoke as the President of the United States. OUR United States. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron, quote: I don't think I am Ron. To me Security doesn't act against freedom in general; it only acts against certain extents of freedom, but it does so to give us freedom: freedom from danger and harm. When we argue that there ought to be more security regarding guns, we are not arguing for less freedom in general, but for more freedom: freedom from the danger and harm of them. I agree, there is one extent of freedom against another: but I don't see how one compares to the other. In which way should I hold your freedom to have a gun with less restrictions, as highly as freedom from more chances that people like loughner might get the guns, with more restrictions? It is not really an argument of giving up freedom, but of transfering some of your freedom from one freedom to another. I don't see how/why anyone wouldn't be able to make that transfer, if it means more freedom from potential harm and danger. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Essorant, forget about guns for a second. Words can hurt just as much as bullets and, indeed, are almost always at the ROOT of violence. So, let's see you apply your logic to our freedom of speech? Do you really think I should have access to your medical records before letting you post? Remember, Ess, under current law, the right to bear arms and the right to free speech fall under exactly the same umbrella. You can do nothing to affect one without similarly affecting the other. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Am not  I'm arguing that there are three constitutional provisions that have to be treated equally here; common defense, representation, keep and bear arms. The second amendment makes no guarantee that you have the right to own ANY arm that is ever made. And certainly not a 9mm Glock with a 33 round magazine. Want an arm? -- have a musket. Ok -- a shotgun -- but not sawed off. And there is absolutely no reason that anyone should have a handgun. Including police. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
This might be a little late in teh discussion; however the actual "right" that Americans are given is spelled out thusly: quote: There have been people interpreting this in different ways since 1791, and the argument has been tested in the Supreme Court. One school of thought is that this precludes ANYONE from denying any citizen from owning any weapon they should so choose to own. Being owned responsibly, this is the interpretation that I subscribe to. Another thought is that there is no reason for a well regulated militia any longer, so we have no right to bear arms. I do not subscribe to that line of thinking any more than I believe that my cold dead fingers are going to be involved in them taking my weapons away... well, that is another dicsussion for another time. I have owned weapons for the last *mumble* years since I got my first one at the age of seven. My father, a Marine Corps marksman and safety instructor taught me how to use it safely, how to hold it, and when to bring it out of the storage space we had for it (I believe the phrase was, "When I get it out for you."). The worst my backside ever hurt was when I pulled it out to show my friends one bright, cheery Saturday afternoon, and was caught by my father. Even though there was no ammunition anywhere in the house, and the firing pin was (I found out later) hidden in a pair of my father's dress shoes in his closet, he let me know in no uncertain terms that I screwed up worse than I had ever thought possible. To this day, I remember that spanking, and have NEVER mishandled, misused, or was unsafe with any weapon that I have owned since then. I also keep the trigger locks on, and the ammunition under lock and the firing pins held safely somewhere else. Moombeam- "If you have to play at being cowboys and red Indians?" Sounds a might condescending, what? To say that we are doing so implies that we are running around pointing them at each lother and going "bang". I can assure you that it is the furthest thing from the truth. I, as stated, own several weapons- including a Glock 17, a Desert Eagle .357 auto mag, a SPAS 12, a .300 Savage, and a variety of hunting rifles- and they are as safe as I can possibly make them. My children have been taught from a very early beginning that I will cut off their ears and pin them to the nearest tree (figuratively speaking, of course) should they be anywhere near them at any time I am not standing beside them. The cases, in addition to the measures I spoke of earlier, are all locked, and the keys are held in a separate location. In order for someone to actually use them, there is going to have to be a considerable effort put forth in order to do so. There are 5 locks that must be undone to be able to effectively fire any of the weapons I own, as well as taking them apart and putting the firing mechanisms back into place, loading the magazines, and then actually using them. I am not going to go through all of that to hold it in my hand and run through the park yelling, "I got you!" Fat couch potatoes? Well... I probably should lose a few pounds; however, fat, I ain't. As for rolling out in my 4x4 to murder squirrels... Dictionary.com refers to the term "murder as such: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law Squirrels do not, the last I knew, qualified to be murdered, although, a good fox squirrel makes a tasty stew. There, generally, is no good use for murder, whereas when I go out bambie blasting (as my favorite tree hugger calls it) and come home having successfully completed the mission of depriving another living creature of it's right to breathe, my family and I actually use the parts. The meat is separated and frozen for future meals, the bones (some of them) are used to make a rather tasty stock for venison soup/stew, and the hide is sold to a local leather worker who uses it for his business. Are all hunters a consciencious as I? Of course not; however, by lumping all hunters/gun owners together, you do us and yourself as much of a disservice as if I had made the statement that all liberals/anti-gun advocates are tree-hugging, dirt-worshippers. Clearly this is not the case in either side of the argument. You also make the point about rights being cherished, respected, and such... this also includes the current administration and the liberal Democratic congressional leadership who are calling for the banning of certain speech, including some- not all- of them who are calling for the banning of talk radio. It is not only the right side of the isle who is abusing the rights of others, and if this point is to be made, it should be made to include EVERYONE from all political thoughts who do such. Well... that's enough preaching from me. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Really? Who, what, where, when, how? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"Words can hurt just as much as bullets" Really Ron, I think you can do better than that pathetic old cliche. I somehow think Giffords would have preferred words through her head anyday. Yeah, sure words hurt sometimes, but isn't that what civilised debate is all about? Spraying words about rather than bullets seems preferable to me. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"I, as stated, own several weapons- including a Glock 17, a Desert Eagle .357 auto mag, a SPAS 12, a .300 Savage, and a variety of hunting rifles- and they are as safe as I can possibly make them ..." I love the juxtaposition of "safe" in that sentence. Gawd help us all. So Ringo, you are happy to take the risk (and moral risk)of owning that armoury, just so as you can go out once in a while and enjoy yourself killing a few animals. A caveman I talked to a few millenia ago told me he kept his selection of prize clubs safe at the back of his cave, and only took them out to bag a few females now and then. Yay for "civilisation". Humm. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"And the bottom line, Moonbeam, is that it's still in the U.S. Constitution in 2011" Yes of course it is Ron, that was my entire point. It's still there because the majority of people want it to be presumably. I'm bemoaning (and worried about) the fact that a majority of adults can't see the ridiculousness of it being there, and don't seem to want to do anything about it. AND .. "And the bottom line, Moonbeam, is that it's still in the U.S. Constitution in 2011" You know what really hacks me off .. it's the way intelligent people seem to love to take advantage of rules that they know are patently absurd. So, it's IN the Constitution still, that doesn't mean that you HAVE to use it as an excuse to behave badly when you know darned well it's outdated and irrelevant to the needs of the day. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Can't you grow up, and if you have to play at being cowboys and red indians use a pea shooter? One must assume, moonbeam, that your main purpose of such a comment is to insult and irritate. I would have thought people would have learned something from the temporary closing of this forum. LR, yes he was subdued but one can easily make the point that, if he had come with multiple clips, prepared to use them, he would not have put himself in such a position where he could be subdued so easily. We have had instances in the not too distant past where multiple clips WERE used. I, personally, do not agree with the possession of assault weapons, nor the large banana clips. I doubt that that is the point, however, in this particular instance. If he had gone in with a six-shooter and shot six people, the result would have been death to the innocents. What we have is a nutcase who had been harboring hatred for the congresswomen for over three years. He went after her. If he had not been able to get a gun legally, he may have gotten one illegally. If he couldn't have gotten a gun, he could have fashioned a molotov cocktail and thrown it or used a bow and arrow or anything to get the job done. To try to turn in into something political, or spurred on by hate speech, or the position of the moon is silly. We have an unbalanced individual who carried out a criminal act. Ron, as president of the United States and not the Democratic party? This is the man who said (before the last elections), "the Republicans can come along for the ride but they have to sit in back." You sure about that? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: I stand corrected Ron, they weren't called states at the time, they were called colonies. The thirteen colonies - independent entities that became the first states - each had their own laws based on English law and the colonists all had the right to bear arms as laid out in the English bill of rights. Better?  My point was that the proto-states restricted rights by the application of laws before 1776. quote: I agree, constitutional law supersedes state law where state law acts to contradict the Constitution. The devil though is in the detail. The constitution laid out the broad bullet points but the devilish detail of implementation, the real power, was handed to the states to deal with by enacting state law. Which could also be why the constitution is a little bereft of detail. If the motor car existed in 1776 there might have been a "right to drive a car" clause but the states would have been responsible for creating their own laws filling in the precise details. Details like how old you had to be to own a car, whether you needed a permit or license to drive one and also when that right could be removed or suspended - if you were mentally incapable for instance or had a history of reckless driving. These restrictions could be tested by the supreme court, which would look at the bullet point of the constitution and determine if the framer's intent was being contradicted by removing the right of a mentally incapable person to drive a car. I think the result of such a test would conclude that the state law was constitutional. If a state law resulted in mentally incapable people driving on the highways and byways of America I'm guessing that most people would see the sense in changing the state laws to reduce the chance of it happening. As in the above example I don't believe that enact such laws would contradict constitutional law. So why the hullabaloo about trying to ensure that mentally unstable folk don't get to carry guns. I don't see a difference. Sure there's a possibility that the definition of "mentally unstable" is hard to define and that the sliding scale of who is, and who isn't, mentally unstable could be open to abuse. Which I think is your point, and it's a very relevant point. That's not to say that we can't build a system that also reduces the possibility of abuse - it is after all what the framers of the constitution intended. [This message has been edited by Uncas (01-15-2011 04:42 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Denise: quote: L.R.: quote: Mischaracterizing someone’s remarks by stating that they said something that they didn’t say is not only shoddy journalism but a lie as well. That’s why it matters. I don’t find the denials of the White House credible. There is documentation that the slogan was one from the 2008 Obama campaign, which was shown in the link that I provided. Obama/Team Obama holds the intellectual property rights to it. Permission to use it would have to have been obtained for its use and the venue in which it was to be used, I would believe. I don’t think that the University just went ahead on their own and decided to co-opt it without permission to put on t-shirts that would be handed out with the President in attendance. Denise: quote: Ron: quote: I don’t see that I did that, Ron. What was made of the event was profane to the memory of those who died and those responsible for it being profane exhibited that they had no shame and no decency when it came to turning a memorial service into essentially a pep rally. With the exception of this one and the Wellstone Memorial, all that I have seen have been solemn and respectful, with the focus solely on the departed and the bereaved, which is supposedly the point of having a memorial. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Right, Denise. Anyone who thinks that the University taking the bullet for the White House by declaring it was all their idea is deluding themselves. It is much more reasonable to acknowledge that the White House worked hand in hand with the University in every step of the planning of the event. The Truth-O-Meter could use a little maintenance. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Moonbeam- My reply to you was as respectful and to the point as I could possibly make it, and yet, it seems that I am not afforded that same courtesy? A bit ago, you might remember, this forum was sealed for your protection against the likes of m,yself and others who were resorting to derision and snide comments instead of respect and understanding. Unless this is your intention, which I do not believe, I tend to be a bit confused about your reply to me. Please, in the interest of total fairness, allow me to restate my response so that it might not be as confusing as I musthave made it before: No, my dear 'beam, there are no weapons that are safe once the trigger has been pulled 5-7 pounds to the rear and the firing pin has hit the primer of the round in the chamber. It is simply not possible. As I explained further down in my post, there are ways to enable the weapons to be as safe as possible until that point: 1) All of the weapons are locked in a closet that is in my room, and is blocked by my Marine Corps footlocker 2) Each weapon is in it's own LOCKED case 3) Each weapon has a trigger lock 4) Each weapon has the firing mechanism (the firing pin) removed from it and they are all stored in a location away from the weapons 5) The ammunition is stored away from the weapons and the firing pins In order for any of these weapons to be fired, you are going to have to go through an extensive process in order to make them able to fire. you have to be knowledgable enough to know how to take them apart, put the pin in them, and put them back together. Aside from traveling to Mordor and throwing them into the Mountain of Doom, can you tell me of anyway to make them safer? And as for "killing yourself a few animals"... It's legal, it's ethical, it helps maintain the population of the animals that would otherwise starve in the winter months without enough food, and I use the animal to feed my family, and to put into the local economy... Which part of that are you objecting to? The part where I am able to put meat on the table for myself, my girfriend, and our combined 6 kids more economically than going to the store and buying a pot roast? The part where I am putting food on the table that is healthier than the stuff in the store with chemicals and hormones, and other such in it? The part where I am giving the animals a chance for survival- I can always miss them- over forcing them to live in pens until someone comes along with a .22 and shoots them in the head at point blank range? Respectfully, just exactly what is your objection to me having the skills and the ability to feed my family legally, morally, and ethically? Just thought I would ask. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Gee Denise, let's see how you feel about these: /pip/Forum6/HTML/002061.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So pointing a finger in another direction is supposed to provide some justification? If you want to go back and discuss those topics, LR, perhaps another thread would be in order. I don't see where that has anything to do with the topic at hand. We are trying to stick to the topic at hand, are we not? ( I would actually enjoy a thread on those "death panels" your link refers to, in light of current event.) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Um. Mike. In case you didn't notice -- I posted those in another thread. That's where the link takes you. To, another thread. LOOK -- here it is again: /pip/Forum6/HTML/002061.html another THREAD |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's fine, LR. Then, if you want to make references to those points, there's a thread available for you to do so. They have nothing to do with this topic. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I agree -- that's why I posted them in another thread.  But what does have bearing is WHY does it matter Denise? What difference does it make? I'm not talking about the morality of skewing someone's words here -- I'm talking about outcomes.... what happens? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"One must assume, moonbeam, that your main purpose of such a comment is to insult and irritate." You can assume what you like Mike, but it's actually an outpouring of frustration mixed with some serious points. My bad no doubt. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ringo Sorry if I came over insulting, you are right, I didn't mean to be, I just find the whole issue of guns and killing very, umm, "stirring". Nothing else but this topic would have got me back here posting at all. Apologies, again. I'll try and frame a calmer response to your latest post when I'm less pressed for time, later, tomorrow or Tuesday. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
OK, Denise, please explain why truth matters...and do it disregarding morality, of course. One must assume that lying is acceptable if the liar gets the outcome it desires? Does that fly in Philly? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Gee, that's a tough one, Mike. I don't think it really can be separated from morality, since the desired outcome of the lie can't be separated from morality either. The headline (the lie) put words into the mouth of someone. It isn't revealed what he really said until I think the sixth paragraph. The intent of the lie (the headline) was to create the false impression that the subject of the article was blaming the congresswoman for her own shooting, giving fodder for the left (some of whom may not have bothered reading through to the sixth paragraph) to defame the subject of the article, putting him, and by extension, the tea party groups and conservatives in general, in a bad light. Defense of such tactics can only fly with people who adhere to a philosophy of relativistic morality, the 'ends justify the means' type of thinking. And yeah, we have them here in Philly too! |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
I agree - the headline was misleading. The speaker's point was that Giffords obviously wasn't worried about any risk otherwise she wouldn't have turned up at the event - not that turning up and putting herself in harm's way was evidence that she only had herself to blame. The point he was trying to make doesn't make any sense but neither does trying to characterise it as something it isn't. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
His point was that if she were truly worried she wouldn't have shown up at the event without a security detail. That seems like a logical point to me. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
It sounds like a guess to me Denise, and not a particularly good one. It's a fair assumption that politicians are aware that the decisions they make and the views that they hold makes them a target for violence, even without additional heated rhetoric from their political opponents. History is littered with tragic examples to remind them. To a politician it's an occupational hazard that they have to live with, yet most of them, in a bid to be accessible to their constituents, don't wander around in tanks or surrounded by bodyguards. That's day to day Denise. If something changed to increase the risk they'd presumably reassess the situation on a case by case basis. When the risks outweighed the possible benefits they'd make appropriate changes to minimise those risks. That's not to say that if they don't hop in a tank and surround themselves with bodyguards they don't think the risk has increased, it simply means that they're brave enough to accept that risk and to carry on as normal. I don't know if any of that is true in Giffords case Denise, it's just a guess. Then again neither does the person who tried to claim that she didn't feel that the remarks against her increased the risk of an attack, based on the evidence that she decided not to turn up in a tank. She may just as easily have decided that the increased risks were outweighed by the benefits. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
He was just giving his opinion, that's all. I guess people have a tendency to offer their opinions when asked for them by the press. I'm personally surprised that she didn't have any security at all, though. Any event that I have ever attended here in Philadelpha,in Delaware and D.C., there were always security types, at least lurking in the crowd and on the perimeter. Maybe the mindset regarding security is different here than in Tucson, I don't know. I think it would have been wise for the local law enforcement to have some sort of detail assigned to the event, whether she requested it or not. Any so-called heated political rhetoric, from either side, had nothing to do with the tragedy. They guy was a nut with a delusional vendetta against Giffords going back to 2007. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The guy was indeed a nut, Denise (though almost certainly not legally insane). He was a loaded gun and it was only a matter of time before that gun was discharged. However ... Something or someone caused that loaded gun to be pointed in a pretty specific direction. I don't think it's unfair to explore why that particular direction was chosen or why it was chosen now. When the nut cases shift their focus from post offices and McDonald's to our elected officials, you can be fairly certain there's a reason for it. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Even he doesn't know what motivated him, most likely. One of his friends related that he had a serious grudge against her since 2007 because she didn't answer one of his questions 'correctly' and that it was festering in him since then. Who knows? Maybe he did it because the sun was shining that day. Asking questions is fair. What wasn't fair was the assault by the media on the right, attempting to make them accessories to murder for exercising their right of political expression in disagreeing with the policies of the current administration. People can't live their lives worrying whether something they say in disagreemnt with the government may set off a madman. It would be a futile exercise, anyway, when nothing or anything could set them off. If it weren't so hard to have adults with mental illness commited against their will, we would have less tragedy caused by them, in my opinion. But the answer isn't in putting the rest of us in straight-jackets for fear of setting off a lunatic. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"They was a brave on a ridge, against the sun. Knowed he stood out. Spread his arms an' stood. Naked as morning, an' against the sun. Maybe he was crazy, I don't know. Stood there, arms spread out; like a cross he looked. Four hundred yards. An' the men--well, they raised their sights an' they felt the wind with their fingers; an' then they jus' lay there and couldn' shoot. Maybe that Injun knowed somepin. Knowed we couldn' shoot. Jes' laid there with the rifles cocked, an' didn' even put 'em to our shoulders. Lookin's at him. Head-band, one feather. Could see it, an' naked as the sun. Long time we laid there an' looked, an' he never moved. An' then the captain got mad. 'Shoot, you crazy bstrds, shoot!' he yells. An' we jus' laid there. 'I'll give you to a five-count, an' then mark you down,' the captain says. Well, sir--we put up our rifles slow, an' ever' man hoped some-body's shoot first. I ain't never been so sad in my life. An' I laid my sights on his belly, cause' you can't stop a Injun no other place--an'--then. Well, he jest plunkered down an' rolled. An' we went up. An' he wasn' big--he'd looked so grand--up there. All tore to pieces an' little. Ever see a cock pheasant, stiff and beautiful, ever' feather drawed an' painted, an' even his eyes drawed in pretty? An' bang! You pick him up--bloody an' twisted, an' you spoiled somepin better'n you; an' eatin' him don't make it up to you, 'cause you spoiled somepin in yaself, an' you can't never fix it up" John Steinbeck - Grapes of Wrath Ringo I haven't got time for a long explanation right now, but that passage begins to sum up what I feel about guns and the way they tend to degrade humanity. Best R |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
