WTF has happened to my Country

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everskyward said:
Just FYI, this thread was reported to the MC as SZ material almost as it started. The consensus was to let it continue as it was a discussion of tragic current events. But here is the opposite side of the story. Subjects like these virtually always turn into polarizing Spin Zone type arguments. Each side is 100% right. The thread did OK for awhile, but there are always those who can't resist tossing flames on the fire.

Note that I am speaking here as myself, and this may not reflect the views of the MC in general.
Click to expand...

This page is known for the participants inability to stay on topic, and discuss any topic in a civil manner.
and you watch, I'll get an argument on this too.

But, I too like to prove myself right, but in this topic, there is no right, just opinions.
 
over50 said:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that the shooter was using that all time American favorite - the AR-15 - the preferred weapon of mass killers. And that's not even mentioning that Texas just recently approved "open carry" with the idea being that everyone packing and displaying a weapon would possibly deter or at least limit casualties when this kind of thing happened. Don't get me wrong, I believe a person has the right to own a gun, but an AR-15? Come-on man. What you shoveling? That rifle is a killing machine and you're the target. From a Marine Corps weapons instructor:

Here's the formula
1. Take a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine
2. Make it easy to acquire
3. Throw in Open Carry laws
3. Add a little mental illness (which we have a lot of these days)
And guess what you got: Dallas- 5; Orlando- 49; Newtown - 26; Colorado -12; San Bernardino - 16; etc. etc. Handgun stats are even worse. This has got to stop. Year after year. It's just getting worse. "We the People" and our "Elected Representatives" are just not getting the job done. Pathetic and Spineless. It's not the America I remember. Maybe it was just a dream.
Click to expand...
Why not the AK47? That seems to be the choice in the rest of the world.

Indiana has open carry. You must have conceal carry permit to open carry.
 
Not that I am necessarily anti NRA, but there is a bit of truth in this post that I saw regarding the messages that are spewed out into today's society. A reasonable person of course would know where the boundaries are...problem is, we often no longer are dealing with reasonable people.

13615172_1179147048845014_4906148299995532995_n.jpg
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
It's times like this....when I feel like buying more guns.
Click to expand...

When the NRA successfully lobbies to allow personal high energy gigawatt laser weapons to be used to protect yourself from the government because "that's our right", then I'm in.

That would be so cool.
 
Shawn said:
Not that I am necessarily anti NRA, but there is a bit of truth in this post that I saw regarding the messages that are spewed out into today's society. A reasonable person of course would know where the boundaries are...problem is, we often no longer are dealing with reasonable people.

13615172_1179147048845014_4906148299995532995_n.jpg
Click to expand...

one man acting on his own does not fit the reason we have the 2nd amendment
one sick dimwit doesn't represent all of us. This is simply the antigun segment trying to blame all for the actions of one.
 
Anti gunners tell me why we don't have a national felon data base? one that every employer and gun sales person can access any time any where?

My opinion,,, we don't have a computer big enough. :)

or 97% would be black?

IF BLM is afraid of those who are killing them, why aren't they afraid of the blacks, by far they kill more of each other than any other group.

That is simple stats.
 
Tom-D said:
are these bad things happening in a localized area? or nation wide?
Click to expand...

Ahh ok.

Answer: Yes. To varying degrees.

The real difference is that it's all streamed live now and neither the powers that be nor the average person is really ready for that emotionally.

300+ died in racially motivated events in the Summer of 1968. By the numbers, we aren't even close yet. But it took much longer for that information to disseminate back then, and there were editors and thought put into the writings about it, and what images got published.

Much less information flow, but far worse actual events.

Faster and better information flow is both a blessing and a curse. Neither the powers that be nor the average Joe is equipped emotionally to handle it. But a great many people do know how to exploit it, for their personal purposes.

It wasn't possible to watch a lynching live from a cell phone in the Democratic South, but we have live video of a man dying in his car after being shot by a police officer in today's world.

People aren't ready for it.
 
Shawn said:
Not that I am necessarily anti NRA, but there is a bit of truth in this post that I saw regarding the messages that are spewed out into today's society. A reasonable person of course would know where the boundaries are...problem is, we often no longer are dealing with reasonable people.

13615172_1179147048845014_4906148299995532995_n.jpg
Click to expand...

What's is an assault weapon?

I did not know a piece of machinery was able to "assault" assault is a verb, that is an action of a person.

Sounds like a scary word folks with little understanding of firearms came up with to make a simple semi automatic rifle sound "evil"

Frankly the only difference between what is viewed by uneducated folks as an "assault" rife vs what is viewed as a sensible "hunting" rifle are simply ergonomic changes like moving handles and using a pistol grip.

I have two chairs, one is a old style French wooden chair, the other one is a black office chair with lumbar support, adjustable heights and recline, would you consider the office chair an "assault" chair?

After all it makes is easy to sit for long periods of time and devise evil plans, one could also use it to sit in a build and bomb, or fire a rifle while seated, heck it could also be used to sit for longer periods of time than the wooden chair, which could be utilized for organizing people and building websites to recruit people for nefarious purposes.

We should ban these assault chairs before any more blood is shed, no American needs chairs like these!! Ban them now for...the children.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
one man acting on his own does not fit the reason we have the 2nd amendment
one sick dimwit doesn't represent all of us. This is simply the antigun segment trying to blame all for the actions of one.
Click to expand...

True...and I am not at all anti gun however do believe a balance is warranted, but I have a few "acquaintances" that are hard core 2nd amendment unrestricted gun ownership types...borderline Preppers and this is a common theme among their arguments, almost Anti-Government us against them.

The point being regardless of what you believe, project that fear into society enough unchecked and someone is bound to latch on.
 
James331 said:
I have two chairs, one is a old style French wooden chair, the other one is a black office chair with lumbar support and a adjustable heights and recline, would you consider the office chair an "assault" chair?
Click to expand...

Okay so if your child were sitting in that classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary school, would you have preferred that the attacker had burst through that front door with:

(a) An old style French wooden chair
(b) A black office chair
(c) An AR-15

Clearly he could have assaulted those children with any one of those weapons. I'm going to guess, maybe I'm wrong, that he might not have killed 20 of them before the police arrived if he had chosen (a) or (b).

Your argument is ludicrous.
 
James331 said:
What's is an assault weapon?
Click to expand...

Changing the term does not change the message. The concept of spweing anti government rhetiroc and taking up arms against the government is not changed by saying "high powered rifle" or "semi automatic weapon" instead.
 
KFD said:
Okay so if your child were sitting in that classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary school, would you have preferred that the attacker had burst through that front door with:

(a) An old style French wooden chair
(b) A black office chair
(c) An AR-15

Clearly he could have assaulted those children with any one of those weapons. I'm going to guess, maybe I'm wrong, that he might not have killed 20 of them before the police arrived if he had chosen (a) or (b).

Your argument is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

He could have killed just as many people with a wooden stock semi auto hunting rifle.

Even more if he chained doors shut and utilized home made incendiary devices.

Going to ban chains, locks, and teaching people chemistry?

Again it's the man, not the tool.

I know it makes people feel like they are doing something and "fixing" these issues, some are even as naive as to believe it "prevents" attacks, I wholeheartedly wished it was that simple.

And "gun control" clearly doesn't work,
The San Bernido shooter was case and point, all of his weapons were BANNED in California, and yet a criminal set out to murder, has proven that they don't care about the law,
I mean we got to look at this like logical grown ups, if a man is going to MURDER, you don't really think he cares about busting some gun laws do you?

Free market rules, if there is a desire someone will sell a product, look at booze in the prohibition, or drugs, making something illegal doesn't to jack diddly from keeping it away from folks who don't care about the, or that, law.



You got to fix why people feel soo pushed into a corner with no other options, that they do these things.

And you'll always have the "rabid dog" factor too.

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" -Benjamin Franklin

I will gladly take the tiny risk of being shot by a mad man, or killed by a "terrorist" before I give up a single freedom or liberty.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Not that I am necessarily anti NRA, but there is a bit of truth in this post that I saw regarding the messages that are spewed out into today's society. A reasonable person of course would know where the boundaries are...problem is, we often no longer are dealing with reasonable people.
Click to expand...
Repeating that type of nonsense also indicates that we are not dealing with reasonable people. The discussion is about the Second Amendment and our Constitution. You can try to ridicule the idea with childish memes or posters and dissuade real conversation, or you can improve your knowledge on what's actually happening. Do you want the rights afforded by the Constitution or not? Is the government so worthy of your trust that you will forfeit your rights in order to feel more secure? Were the founders nincompoops who just didn't know that real security and freedom were to be found in government provision? Or, could it possibly be that they understood the issue better than some short-sighted millennial who gets the bulk of his/her wisdom from facebook and meme-swapping on social media?
 
James331 said:
He could have killed just as many people with a wooden stock semi auto hunting rifle.

Even more if he chained doors shut and utilized home made incendiary devices.
Click to expand...

Nope and nope. Just saying stuff doesn't make it true. It's how quickly you can kill people before they can react.
 
James331 said:
I will gladly take the tiny risk of being shot by a mad man, or killed by a "terrorist" before I give up a single freedom or liberty.
Click to expand...

But you give up Freedoms and Liberty every day...you are subject to search and restrictions by the TSA to fly on a plane, you are subject to speed limits imposed by the government, you have to pay fees and permits to do work on your house...so "freedoms" are given up in our daily lives every single day in order to live in a civilized society.

Now where that line of living in a civilized society vs anarchy is where we can all debate.
 
I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with the gun zealots. Just read the news. What is happening is a direct result of the policies the gun zealots are arguing for. Good job guys, looks like it's working well ;)
 
Cooter143 said:
Or, could it possibly be that they understood the issue better than some short-sighted millennial who gets the bulk of his/her wisdom from facebook and meme-swapping on social media?
Click to expand...

HA, you can attack the message or you can attack the messenger...that says a lot about one's credibility.

My point was about the message being delivered to society and the indirect call to action of any group, not the action of taking away guns...but apparently people are so fearful of loosing their guns any mention of that sends you into a tailspin as evident here.

I though this was a conversation about the "Why" things are happening...not gun control.

Context is hard.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Ha, you can attack the message or you can attach the messenger
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's appropriate to do both. But I didn't attack you, I challenged the message and the method. In case you stopped reading after the first sentence, I also framed the discussion in the context in which it should be examined. Pick any question and answer it and will be the beginnings of the right discussion. All this dog whistle stuff prevents discussion. I seriously doubt that you are informed on the NRAs message but I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Were the founders wrong about the Second Amendment or not?
 
KFD said:
Nope and nope. Just saying stuff doesn't make it true. It's how quickly you can kill people before they can react.
Click to expand...

Apparently you never heard of the folks who got locked in churches and the church a blaze?

Or the guy just makes a bomb, that's something anyone with a little chemistry background could make.

Or they just buy a illegal firearm and go nuts.

Or they buy a semi auto hunting rifle, plenty of non "assault" rifles which will fire just as fast and kill you just as dead.

Mexico has way stricter gun laws then us, seems lots of folks get shot all the time.
 
Shawn said:
But you give up Freedoms and Liberty every day...you are subject to search and restrictions by the TSA to fly on a plane, you are subject to speed limits imposed by the government, you have to pay fees and permits to do work on your house...so "freedoms" are given up in our daily lives every single day in order to live in a civilized society.

Now where that line of living in a civilized society vs anarchy is where we can all debate.
Click to expand...

Minus the TSA, which I believe should be dismantled and replaced with, well, nothing.

Speed limits and building permit fees don't stomp on my constitutional rights.
 
Shawn said:
I though this was a conversation about the "Why" things are happening
Click to expand...

Right, and that is a good discussion to have. But, that is not what your propaganda poster is about. PM me and I'll gladly tell you why this is happening, knowledgeable people have predicted it for several years.
 
Cooter143 said:
Were the founders wrong about the Second Amendment or not?
Click to expand...

Not in the least bit...but of you go back and read my FaceBook Meme-Swipin Social Media post it says NOTHING about gun control, taking away guns, or limitations of the second amendment. Seeing everyone interject their own interpretation of that has been enlightening to say the least. I don't believe the NRA is evil nor in strict gun control and the word NRA could be easily interchanged with a number of organizations, so in that sense it may not be fair to the NRA. What it says is the message of WHY you need to have the guns is the dangerous part and that call to action was actually acted upon by a deranged individual in Dallas.
 
Last edited:
Shawn said:
Not in the least bit...but of you go back and read my FaceBook Meme-Swipin Social Media post it says NOTHING about gun control, taking away guns, or limitations of the second amendment. Seeing everyone interject their own interpretation of that has been enlightening to say the least. I don't believe the NRA is evil nor in strict gun control. What it says is the message of WHY you need to have the guns and that call to cation was acted upon by a deranged individual in Dallas.
Click to expand...

The direct implication in what you shared is that the NRA has been call people to act out against their government and they got what they wanted in Dallas. Unfortunately, it seems you believe it to be partially true. I am happy to continue the discussion in PM and I will cordially share my thoughts there.
 
Cooter143 said:
The direct implication in what you shared is that the NRA has been call people to act out against their government and they got what they wanted in Dallas. Unfortunately, it seems you believe it to be partially true. I am happy to continue the discussion in PM and I will cordially share my thoughts there.
Click to expand...

Agree and see my edit I was typing as you were quoting me...but that is part of my point. People get so riled up and hung up at the buzz word terms of NRA, Assault Rifles, Gun Control, ect. provoked by their personal bias that it shuts down any objective conversation about the actual undying issue or message.
 
James331 said:
So if you respect the United States and stand up for its constitution that makes you a "zealot"?
Click to expand...
No, but sort of like the Bible (hmmm, the analogy seems to be working), one can find things in the US Constitution and history to support various interpretations. I've seen "original intent" folks who claim the Constitution is immutable. It means exactly what it meant on the day it was written. Of course, that's only when it suits their political point of view. Different story when it doesn't. BTW, that is equally true for "living constitution" folks.

So yes, as soon as you say, "Mine is the only correct position. 'There is no discussion, no debate, nada.'" you are indeed proving my point.

So is the person who responds to you post with, "OK, take your musket and join the 'well regulated militia' - that's what the Constitution protects."
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
No, but sort of like the Bible (hmmm, the analogy seems to be working), one can find things in the US Constitution and history to support various interpretations. I've seen "original intent" folks who claim the Constitution is immutable. It means exactly what it meant on the day it was written. Of course, that's only when it suites their political point of view. Different story when it doesn't. BTW, that is equally true for "living constitution" folks.

So yes, as soon as you say, "Mine is the only correct position. 'There is no discussion, no debate, nada.'" you are indeed proving my point.

So is the person who responds to you post with, "OK, take your musket and join the 'well regulated militia' - that's what the Constitution protects."
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think that anyone pushing for gun-control would be happier with a militia than with individual gun ownership?
 
My current state of residence is probably the best case in point arguing in favor of gun rights. Vermont has extremely permissive gun laws, allowing both open carry and concealed carry without requiring a CCW permit. Yet, at least according to Wikipedia (based on 2010 statistics), it has the lowest per capita gun murder rate of any state in the country (0.3 per 100,000). I'm not sure what the stats are for crime in which guns are used, but having lived here for about 2 years I can count on one hand the publicized cases where anyone was shot.

This is not to say that the same level of permissiveness would be workable in more heavily urbanized states - Vermont is one of the most rural states in the country and the fact that Vermonters are very protective of their guns for use in hunting is one reason more restrictive gun laws have never gained traction here. But it shows that the argument that greater availability of guns translates automatically to greater likelihood of using one to settle disputes simply doesn't hold water - you have to consider human factors e.g. racial tensions, mental illness, urban stressors...
 
Cooter143 said:
Do you seriously think that anyone pushing for gun-control would be happier with a militia than with individual gun ownership?
Click to expand...
"Anyone?"
Happier with "A well regulated Militia" to assist in maintaining "the security of a free State"?
Yes. Absolutely.

Will some not be happy unless private gun ownership is completely banned in the US? Also yes. They are, after all the kissing cousins of the self-proclaimed 2nd amendment "absolutists." They also feel there is nothing to discuss.
 
Shawn said:
But you give up Freedoms and Liberty every day...you are subject to search and restrictions by the TSA to fly on a plane, you are subject to speed limits imposed by the government, you have to pay fees and permits to do work on your house...so "freedoms" are given up in our daily lives every single day in order to live in a civilized society.

Now where that line of living in a civilized society vs anarchy is where we can all debate.
Click to expand...

We are subject to those things because we (indirectly) voted to be subjected to those things.

Not because we were magically subjected to them by "society" who allows us to exist.

We could vote away TSA in a heartbeat if We The People were so-inclined.

(Obviously notwithstanding that bureaucracies and politicians would whine mightily and invoke all the possible Statist arguments possible as they were shown the door.)

See if you can spot your argument here on the Statist Bingo card... Those of us playing at home just got to fill in another space! Haha.

And note that "Mah Roads!!!" is already a free space and spare us that one. Haha. It's always the one from anyone debating State growth that comes out eventually, so it's a freebie. :)

8d2e77c7d117a499a415b24716f04f8e.jpg


You're essentially lamenting that without stacking SCOTUS with politicians, or following one of the well-documented ways to change the Constitution that require 75% approval and ratification by the States, that your viewpoint is incompatible with the Constitution and therefore negotiations must take place with those you would seek to regulate.

It's about control. You want control and don't have the legal right to do so without the tacit approval of those being controlled.

Words like "balance" need not apply, they're an opinion. Regulation is the complete opposite of "shall not be infringed". Therefore one either negotiates with those being regulated, or one attempts to end run around the law as written. If you allow "leadership" to be voted in who negotiate in bad faith while they attempt the end run? Expect blowback. No surprise there. When nobody trusts the people you voted for... Goes for both sides. They don't even care if we trust them at this point, really.

If one wants the Constitution changed, the process is available and documented. It requires (for good reason) a very large majority to do it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
"Anyone?"
Happier with "A well regulated Militia" to assist in maintaining "the security of a free State"?
Yes. Absolutely.

Will some not be happy unless private gun ownership is completely banned in the US? Also yes. They are, after all the kissing cousins of the self-proclaimed 2nd amendment "absolutists." They also feel there is nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...
We must have in mind a different idea of militia, or maybe you missed how I qualified anyone.
 
azure said:
My current state of residence is probably the best case in point arguing in favor of gun rights. Vermont has extremely permissive gun laws, allowing both open carry and concealed carry without requiring a CCW permit. Yet, at least according to Wikipedia (based on 2010 statistics), it has the lowest per capita gun murder rate of any state in the country (0.3 per 100,000). I'm not sure what the stats are for crime in which guns are used, but having lived here for about 2 years I can count on one hand the publicized cases where anyone was shot.

This is not to say that the same level of permissiveness would be workable in more heavily urbanized states - Vermont is one of the most rural states in the country and the fact that Vermonters are very protective of their guns for use in hunting is one reason more restrictive gun laws have never gained traction here. But it shows that the argument that greater availability of guns translates automatically to greater likelihood of using one to settle disputes simply doesn't hold water - you have to consider human factors e.g. racial tensions, mental illness, urban stressors...
Click to expand...
Waitaminit - you are not actually expecting the folks in an urban area where gun deaths are an everyday occurrence to understand what gun ownership means in a more rural area, are you? That's sacrilegious!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top