Man who helped Sandy Hook kids is harassed by conspiracy theorists
That's sad.
neorichieb1971 wrote:US citizens wouldn't have a chance against the Syrian army, let alone the US military might.
Would people please stop repeating this garbage? US citizens aren't likely going to be fighting the military; if the military didn't have any defections that would mean that the rightness of the rebellion isn't agreed. If one guy wants to fight with the government then they should go through the process like everybody else, even with the knowledge that can be (and historically has been, i.e. before the Civil Rights era and also during it) potentially fatal to oneself.
Ideally people should have the right to exit from a system of government they don't like (which is why I lol at the European-style project of trying to shoehorn everybody into the same system, although it is a noble one in most respects it ends up being a straitjacket when it fucks up, as you've discovered during the Eurozone crisis). But this doesn't mean you get to go all Free State-r on everybody and force them to change the way they are living. A rebellion that can't demonstrate the justice of its cause and win converts is probably not a just rebellion.
DEL wrote:Ok, so there's this creepy guy the zionist mainstream media keep rolling out for interviews on Sandy Hook. His name is Gene Rosen.
He has a site: http://genespetservice.com/
Its logo as you can see is "There's no place like home" - Serving Sandy Hook and Newtown Connecticut
So there's a Judy Garland/Wizard of Oz link.
Now check this: http://www.thejudyroom.com/soundtracks/annie.html "Annie Get your GUN" on Sandy Hook Records by Judy Garland.
Not that this is a coincidence, not that any of this was pre-planned
I know you don't believe in coincidences, but I'm not even sure what you're suggesting here.
Sandy Hook Records released a lot of old-timey crap in the 80s, but you think that because of the name they were established by or connected to the people planning this shooting and that they bought up the rights to hundreds of old American music standards and published all those albums over the course of a decade, all so that they could include a song from the 40s that had "gun" in the title in one of these releases in order to hint at what they would pull off 30 years later, but that they would only reference this via a famous quote from a movie that starred the woman that covered this old song on the website of one of the actors in their conspiracy?
Ed Oscuro wrote:
Would people please stop repeating this garbage?
Maybe if you were less naive/unrealistic. There will never be a rebellion in the US. The closest would be the media and corporations rebelling on the president if he dared to do something for the people.
How do you shoot yourself in the hand while you're loading a handgun? At what point does your hand need to go in front of the barrel while loading it?! And why would you bring a loaded shotgun to a crowded gun show, the one thing about basic gun safety people are always taught is never to transport a loaded gun! How exactly do you manage to buy a gun without laws in place making sure you know how to use it safely?!
Dumbasses. Figures they'd be the ones obsessed with weaponry.
I like this comment:
What kind of people don't triple check to make sure the gun they're toting around for sale is completely bullet free? Careless morons who shouldn't be allowed to handle a can opener, that's who. This is Gun Safety 101.
If you're wondering why the first four words of the 2d Amendment are "A well regulated militia," look no further.
Ed Oscuro wrote:
Would people please stop repeating this garbage?
Maybe if you were less naive/unrealistic. There will never be a rebellion in the US. The closest would be the media and corporations rebelling on the president if he dared to do something for the people.
You are still missing the point.
Potential rebels don't need to be able to beat the US military in a full scale war. Why? Because there is a BIG difference between rounding up unarmed dissidents and imprisoning/executing them vs having whole communities turn into warzones when there is armed resistance.
Likewise, the POTENTIAL for a rebellion can't be ignored, regardless of whether it comes to pass. (BTW, "never" is a long time. A rebellion is pretty likely during that timeframe.) Did you ever stop to wonder why the US has so many nukes when they don't actually use them?
ED-057 wrote:Did you ever stop to wonder why the US has so many nukes when they don't actually use them?
Because we need excuses to keep the military budget rising without question even as Social Security and Medicare benefits are put on the chopping block without a moment's hesitation?
Yeah well, when it comes to America its all about money. Most countries stay righteous until more money can be made by not being so. Just imagine a president who didn't have anything to do and just sat through an administration. He wouldn't be remembered for shit.
And YES, I do acknowledge the UK probably has just as many skeletons in the closet. UK's biggest export (monetary wise)= food, then weapons (America biggest customer ). 3rd biggest export = videogames. Apparently...
This industry has become 2 dimensional as it transcended into a 3D world.
Another shooter or maybe two shooters at a Texas college is just being reported. Details are obviously scarce, details of how many injured even scarcer.
Good thing those gun control reforms that came in after Sandy hook really addressed the problem.....
Oh wait...
Edit: hmmm.. reports have disappeared. apparently several people were being helped into ambulances according to aerial photographs but maybe that's not what happened.
Maybe someone was just testing his rocket launcher or anti-personal mines and it all got a bit out of hand.
To go "full-Plank" - colloquial - To experience disproportionate levels of frustration as a result of resistance to completing a task. Those who go "full-Plank" very rarely recover.
xris wrote:What about the guy that walked into a summer camp and shot a shit load of kids last year?
What about him? Anders Breivik is rotting in jail. Norway hasn't updated their firearms laws yet. Some copycat tried to arrange a similar attack in the Czech Republic but was apprehended before he could carry it out. Life goes on, apparently.
Hagane wrote:
Ed Oscuro wrote:
Would people please stop repeating this garbage?
Maybe if you were less naive/unrealistic. There will never be a rebellion in the US. The closest would be the media and corporations rebelling on the president if he dared to do something for the people.
Ed Oscuro wrote:Would people please stop repeating this garbage? US citizens aren't likely going to be fighting the military [...]
Strictly speaking I didn't write anything (in that selection) about the probability of a revolution - which I agree is very low. I don't know, given what I've written before in this thread, and even carefully reading what I wrote here, how the fuck you could come to the conclusion that I think a revolution by the people is imminent.
A bit too eager to dash something off without having a basic understanding of what was written, there.
Don't know about you guys. But when the next shooting happens in America I'm going to LMFAO!
Simply because anyone supporting a lack of gun control is making this shit happen.
During 911, all planes were grounded. Why? Because if they were all grounded there wouldn't be any more plane crashes.
Rule of thumb. Take guns away from average family's.. You have less teenage nutters going into schools having a riot. Sure, they might be a revolution, there might be gangsters trying to take over your neighbourhood. But basically, one thing at a time. The problem is, you ain't willing to try anything. Your doing nothing. Doing nothing is very congress.
This industry has become 2 dimensional as it transcended into a 3D world.
neorichieb1971 wrote:Don't know about you guys. But when the next shooting happens in America I'm going to LMFAO!
Simply because anyone supporting a lack of gun control is making this shit happen.
Siiiiiiigh.
So if people die in a car crash, we should ban cars?
If people die from food poisoning, we should ban food?
There's cases on record of people forgetting to eat or attend to babies because they were playing MMORPGs. Should those be banned?
Common sense (you know, the thing most americans lack) dictates that bans never really solve anything. They just keep the weak, weak, and the strong stay strong.
Which apparently is what most people want. Might as well burn the constitution and turn America into a dictatorship. That's apparently what people want.
xris wrote:What about the guy that walked into a summer camp and shot a shit load of kids last year?
It was pretty ridiculous hearing him in court.
"Is there anything you feel remorse for?"
"Yes. I'd to say to my Turner-diary lovin', fertilizer bomb humping, white supremacist brothers that I'm sorry I didn't kill more people."
The judge cut off his mic at least before he could get to the end part. (The preamble of the sentence kind of telegraphed where he was going with it.) A real turdmuncher, that one...
So if people die in a car crash, we should ban cars?
Yeah sure. The recession has prevented the equivalent of about 13 September 11's. You're not a supporter of September 11's are u??????????
(Seriously though, a hundred years from now, if there is a hundred years from now, the idea of a human being in complete and total control of a zooming 3-ton mass of steel and fiberglass would seem crazy and barbaric.)
PSX Vita: Slightly more popular than Color TV-Game system. Almost as successful as the Wii U.
BryanM wrote:(Seriously though, a hundred years from now, if there is a hundred years from now, the idea of a human being in complete and total control of a zooming 3-ton mass of steel and fiberglass would seem crazy and barbaric.)
Says you. I'm buying my own private spaceship before I die.
Edmond Dantes wrote:So if people die in a car crash, we should ban cars?
No, you regulate the car makers so they make safe vehicles, require drivers to be licensed and trained in said vehicles' operation, and only allow drivers to drive on roads as opposed to any place they please. Or is there a "car show loophole" around this?
If people die from food poisoning, we should ban food?
No, you regulate the food producers to make them put forth effort to keep rat turds out of our food (history shows very clearly that they won't do so unless forced), and make them label everything they produce so consumers can see what they're buying (ditto to previous).
Might as well burn the constitution and turn America into a dictatorship. That's apparently what people want.
It sure seemed to be during the Bush years (just connect someone to "terrorist activities", even without a shred of evidence, and poof! All their rights gone in a flash! God bless the Commander in Chief!), but nobody other than a bunch of crazy Socialists made a peep about it then.
BulletMagnet wrote:No, you regulate the car makers so they make safe vehicles
It's almost like you feel like there was this legend of some kind of superhero kind of guy that did this single handedly, saved hundreds of thousands of lives, ran for president, and somehow lost..
PSX Vita: Slightly more popular than Color TV-Game system. Almost as successful as the Wii U.
Well lets take this scenario. I am a boss of a company. Some shootings happen at my company. 3 weeks later, another shooting.
I ask "Whats been done to prevent these shootings?"
They reply "Errr, nothing really, but we got good coverage".
Not one person has the power to change anything. So as the boss, I just PRETEND its not that serious and go about my business.
Don't shoot me please. But really, that piece of paper called a constitution is pretty much made you a non progress country for 200+ years. Has anyone tried re-writing it?
There is only one reason you have guns. MONEY! Its a big business and America needs it. The guys that run those companies are in bed with the politicians and the gun shop owners shrug a shoulder. Those people are pretty evil in my book. I would not consider them to have Americans best interests at heart. More likely they are where they are because they fantasize of everything the constitution warns us against.
I keep hearing Americans say that when they are over seas they don't feel safe. Is that because its darker in Europe? or perhaps you don't have a gun whilst your here? Common folk like myself get a bit nervous sometimes in certain situations, but I know the percentage chance of a shootout is zero. With that in mind I know i'm not going to die without a good fighting chance of survival. I'm a pretty nice guy in person and I'm prepared to listen or see anything as long as I can walk away. Which I do.
I went to East St Louis a few times. I was shitting myself. Bought a pack of cigerettes at a station and the guy had to talk through a speaker and I had to push my money through 2 panes of bullet proof glass. Some place in NYC. Went to a southern fried chicken joint. Same shit with the glass and a cubby hole for the meal. Except this place had bullet holes in the counter. As you can guess it wasn't a great area and I certainly wanted out of there ASAP. These 2 places don't exist in the UK. We seldom need to build our chicken joints like a fortress.
So now we move to surburbia. Where supposedly none of this happens. "We want a gun because its our right" " we want a gun to protect ourselves". From what? The hoodlums from 125th street? They ain't coming near you.
Those suburbians only want a gun because 125th street exists. East St Louis exists, that chicken joint exists. The main threat to you guys is some kid who loses his mind and comes to your children with a gun from a like minded person. Who owns a gun for home protection right down your street.
Your so addicted to a way of life that your not seeing the bigger picture. I hate to say it "But i'm alright Jack" suits this whole ordeal very nicely. It doesn't seem to matter who dies, as long as you live and hold a gun legally. The people who support the NRA want to bring their children up in a environment where a gun on the mantle piece is an everyday thing. Which is the same as putting them in harms way to such an occurrence as this sandy shooting.
I am happy that in the UK we can vote for common sense. Regardless of if someone wrote something to the contrary 200+ years ago.
This industry has become 2 dimensional as it transcended into a 3D world.
Well lets take this scenario. I am a boss of a company. Some shootings happen at my company. 3 weeks later, another shooting.
I ask "Whats been done to prevent these shootings?"
That sounds like the question a sociopath would ask. A normal human would ask "WHY are my employees killing each other?"
But really, that piece of paper called a constitution is pretty much made you a non progress country for 200+ years.
Is that so? Do have any evidence or informed argument to support this statement?
Has anyone tried re-writing it?
Funny you should ask, because regarding the issue of gun control the answer is a surprising "no." There does not appear to be any concerted effort by the anti-gun crowd to amend the constitution to get what they want. Instead of following the process that is in place to change the constitution, they would rather ignore it.
There were amendments proposed on both sides of the gay marriage issue. And there is an organization called "move to amend" which is drumming up support to nullify the "citizens united" SCOTUS decision. So why can't the anti-gun folks take a break from spouting uninformed, emotional nonsequiturs and come up with something that can be taken seriously? I would still disagree with them, but at least they wouldn't sound so pathetic.
ED-057 wrote: So why can't the anti-gun folks take a break from spouting uninformed, emotional nonsequiturs and come up with something that can be taken seriously? I would still disagree with them, but at least they wouldn't sound so pathetic.
I'd say something about projection here, given the COMPLETELY FUCKING CRAZY arguments I hear from gun advocates, including the head of the NRA and my friends, but it's just going to fall on deaf ears. So far, all I've heard from people in favor of gun restrictions is more along the lines of "Why don't we enforce existing regulations better?" or "Maybe we should restrict large clips". Frankly, this seems like a pretty moderate stance. Of course, the extremists hear, "We're going to take all your guns away and lock you up in a FEMA camp".. Big surprise there.
I'd say something about projection here, given the COMPLETELY FUCKING CRAZY arguments I hear from gun advocates, including the head of the NRA and my friends, but it's just going to fall on deaf ears. So far, all I've heard from people in favor of gun restrictions is more along the lines of "Why don't we enforce existing regulations better?" or "Maybe we should restrict large clips". Frankly, this seems like a pretty moderate stance. Of course, the extremists hear, "We're going to take all your guns away and lock you up in a FEMA camp".. Big surprise there.
You make it sound like I am debating a strawman. And you begin your post by attacking some (unspecified) NRA stance, which looks suspiciously like your own strawman. The part of my post that you quoted was addressing 2nd amendment opponents not bothering to propose an amendment of their own to change what they don't like. If all they want is "enforce existing regulations" then they shouldn't have a problem with it. Yet there they are, saying that the 2nd is obsolete or that it doesn't really mean what it plainly does.
I'll be looking forward to Feb 3rd.
There's crazy talk about yet another ff happening in America that day, but its too obvious.
Not that anything untoward will happen on Feb 3rd in the USA, be it financial or physical, but it'll be interesting to see.
The question isn't whether guns or cars or poorly chosen detergent mixes can kill - they can, obviously.
The question really is whether other people doing dumb things means that it's spoiled for everyone else.
There's also the troubling aspect of it being a sanction against the innocent, like strict liability criminal laws. It has some aspect (as I've said before) of being unevenly targeted - some populations will benefit from a firearms law more than others, but it's not clear that to get the good of taking handguns out of the hands of lowlife that you need to equally punish everyone else. Insofar as firearms "control" is merely proposing some kind of reasonable process to register a firearm (I think this is mainly a sticking point with the guns community because they fear a national guns round-up) and ask of firearms owners that they demonstrate competence with the operation of a firearm, do not have obvious mental problems, and are willing to share the fact of their gun ownership with at least some party, I don't think it's a problem for any legal owner.
Like taxes, such controls might be bad for what they are (obligations), but generally good in what they should bring (compare Socrates' or Plato's discussion of exercise - bad in of itself - which is good for what it brings - health; taxes, likewise, would bring improved infrastructure, which outweighs the effects of impoverishing citizens and the opportunities for corruption taxes might present). Firearms control that consists of banning wide ranges of "clips" and whatever the firearms illiterate deem scary features ("silencers," oh no! They make rifles safer to operate...and mandatory suppressor use laws in parts of Europe have not been accompanied by a huge backlog of unsolved professionally executed murders) is likely not only to be bad for what it is, but also not good enough, on balance, for what it brings - not enough good to overcome the reduction of freedom. I see firearms control as being more like mandatory voter ID laws - bad in what they are (another obligation), and bad in the sense that the good it might bring (deterring some voter fraud) is overwhelmed by the unintentional bad effects (legitimate voters are deterred from voting). Voter ID laws have a pretty solid consensus behind them and it seems clear that is a pretty straightforward case - more so than firearms control laws where academics seem intent on ignoring all the good effects of firearms control, probably because of the biases formed by working with a.) police forces in b.) cities with c.) a lot of poverty and crime, which does represent a large portion of the population but can't provide the only model for firearms ownership law in this country.
What the firearms control bloc generally seems not to recognize is that even if it produces a significant improvement over the status quo, as measured by some kind of metric like homicides, the obsession with a strict "one-size-fits-all" rule (due to some misplaced and probably mostly unconscious assumption about fairness I suspect) for firearms prohibition is at odds with reasonable beliefs about the goods secured by personal liberty - the Constitution, after all, creates many cases (and throughout most of Western law, especially in criminal justice, you can find similar biases towards the individual) where the liberty and autonomy of an individual is secured ahead of "probable" goods thought likely to be brought in many cases (i.e., acquittal of charges on technical grounds, which of course seems to any prosecutor or judge like an acquittal for reasons of recordkeeping but in fact has its origin based on the assertion that some right trumps even a perfect demonstration of criminal behavior). In cases where an individual cannot be reasonably expected to act (i.e., consumer protection law) on their own behalf, it seems reasonable for government to step in. But in cases where a person may in fact act more effectively on their own behalf than in fact any agency of government (as currently organized), it's wrong (and petty) to essentially rule as if that people should be assumed always to be idiots who need protecting from themselves. Firearms control advocates should be careful not to conjure too grand a vision with their first efforts so they do not overstep the bounds of common sense.
The problems aren't limited to the unfocused nature of some firearms control vision, either. The U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, yet one of the examples of a criminal retroactive law is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, which appears to be a simple retroactive law.
Video games controversy, anyone?
"The idea of humans being in control of" ANYTHING could be deemed barbaric. However nobody is proposing that everything be automated, and even if you did - well, it'd be a similar problem to the idea of automating the industry of a nation by computer. You can always try to
ED-057 wrote:
You make it sound like I am debating a strawman. And you begin your post by attacking some (unspecified) NRA stance, which looks suspiciously like your own strawman. The part of my post that you quoted was addressing 2nd amendment opponents not bothering to propose an amendment of their own to change what they don't like. If all they want is "enforce existing regulations" then they shouldn't have a problem with it. Yet there they are, saying that the 2nd is obsolete or that it doesn't really mean what it plainly does.
Probably because it sounds like you're debating a strawman. Shit, I wish *I* were debating a strawman. I mean, look at this shit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ory_1.html . This is *the* major pro-gun lobbying organization. Think about that for a second.
And yes, I'd like to hear your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, because I've found that's usually pretty entertaining.
@Ed, I do agree that there's no good "one size fits all" solution. Cities have very different needs from rural areas. But, I have to ask about:
Ed Oscuro wrote:Video games controversy, anyone?
I'm not sure what that's implying, but please don't make the (oft-comitted) mistake of confusing a tool that's the means to perform an action with media. I'd say it's like confusing a screwdriver with a handbook on how to use screwdrivers-- assuming that videogames influence people to commit violence (which I don't believe is the case). Though I guess you'd be in pretty deep shit if you needed a handbook to figure out how to use a screwdriver.
What you need is "phone home" cabinets that when opened (to take the gun out) you get a text from gun control HQ. If you don't reply within 10 minutes the cops come round and blow the shit out of your house. That way, if anyone except the true owner of the gun has it, they can be caught (and shot if necessary) before any harm is done to others.
I'd go for that. If you don't buy a "phone home" cabinet. You have to give up your guns.
There, technology solved the problem. Albeit expensive. But oh well!
This industry has become 2 dimensional as it transcended into a 3D world.
