mudcat.org: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]


BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

Jack Campin 16 Dec 12 - 08:56 PM
Janie 16 Dec 12 - 08:38 PM
Sandy Mc Lean 16 Dec 12 - 08:34 PM
Dorothy Parshall 16 Dec 12 - 08:30 PM
GUEST,JIS 16 Dec 12 - 08:14 PM
catspaw49 16 Dec 12 - 08:13 PM
Midchuck 16 Dec 12 - 08:13 PM
Greg F. 16 Dec 12 - 08:10 PM
pdq 16 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM
catspaw49 16 Dec 12 - 07:37 PM
gnu 16 Dec 12 - 07:36 PM
Bat Goddess 16 Dec 12 - 07:06 PM
pdq 16 Dec 12 - 07:01 PM
Bobert 16 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM
pdq 16 Dec 12 - 06:41 PM
Bobert 16 Dec 12 - 06:32 PM
Stringsinger 16 Dec 12 - 05:54 PM
McGrath of Harlow 16 Dec 12 - 05:36 PM
gnu 16 Dec 12 - 05:35 PM
jacqui.c 16 Dec 12 - 05:30 PM
John MacKenzie 16 Dec 12 - 05:04 PM
kendall 16 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM
Henry Krinkle 16 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM
GUEST,Lighter 16 Dec 12 - 04:12 PM
Henry Krinkle 16 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM
Backwoodsman 16 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM
Sandy Mc Lean 16 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM
GUEST,Backwoodsman sans Cookie 16 Dec 12 - 03:31 PM
catspaw49 16 Dec 12 - 03:19 PM
Sandy Mc Lean 16 Dec 12 - 03:06 PM
catspaw49 16 Dec 12 - 03:00 PM
kendall 16 Dec 12 - 02:45 PM
kendall 16 Dec 12 - 02:40 PM
catspaw49 16 Dec 12 - 02:22 PM
Sandy Mc Lean 16 Dec 12 - 02:14 PM
GUEST,Lighter 16 Dec 12 - 02:10 PM
theleveller 16 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM
Ebbie 16 Dec 12 - 02:03 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 16 Dec 12 - 01:37 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 16 Dec 12 - 01:30 PM
GUEST,gillymor 16 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM
pdq 16 Dec 12 - 01:27 PM
kendall 16 Dec 12 - 01:10 PM
MGM·Lion 16 Dec 12 - 01:08 PM
kendall 16 Dec 12 - 01:05 PM
Greg F. 16 Dec 12 - 12:54 PM
kendall 16 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM
Bill D 16 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM
John MacKenzie 16 Dec 12 - 12:27 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 16 Dec 12 - 12:16 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:56 PM

The woman in the article Dorothy linked to took the precaution of securing all the knives in the house so her insanely violent son couldn't get at them.

Adam Lanza's mother was so determined to win her Darwin Award she kept three guns and enough ammo for a massacre.

Not much similarity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Janie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:38 PM

Very thoughtful and balanced comments from several people on "Weekend All Things Considered" this evening. http://www.npr.org/2012/12/16/167401103/we-have-to-act-on-gun-violence-but-how.

What is clear is that a multifaceted approach is needed.

One thing I will say as a mental health professional; The fact that a person is mentally ill does not make that person dangerous. Mentally Ill is also a nebulous term. There are lots of diagnoses that support the medical necessity for treatment. Legally, anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis identified in the DSM or the ICD could presumably be legally deemed "mentally ill."

I bet 99% of you could come into my office at some point in your lives because you are experiencing some physical signs and symptoms and/or are either having objective difficulty functioning at school, work or with personal relationships and/or are experiencing subjective emotional distress, and there is a psychiatric diagnosis that can be made that will establish the medical necessity for treatment, be it medication, talk therapy or a combination of the two. A diagnosis does not predict the potential for lethality.

There is no medical definition of insanity. There are legal definitions that vary from state to state and that all pertain to criminal justice.

There is also no magic formula or esp by which a clinician (or a family member or a work colleague) can discern that an individual is dangerous, imminently or in the long term.

I won't take the time to hunt it up now, but on Friday evening, again on NPR, a sociologist/criminologist was interviewed who talked about the profile of a mass killer. When asked why that profile could not be used he responded, appropriately, that there are way too many false positives. To paraphrase him, lots of people have the symptoms, but very few have the disease - meaning the vast majority of people who fit the profile would never commit murder, much less mass murder.

I'm all for a better mental health system - would be great if there were the public will in this country to fund it. But a better mental health system and/or background checks ain't gonna do it folks. Gotta get rid of some of the guns available to the general population to truly reduce the risks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:34 PM

The term "bear arms" has been taken out of context:
Bear arms


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:30 PM

While others blither on and on about gun control, this mother tells about her son who could end up another shooter if he does not get the help she knows he needs.

Do we spend money for the sake of the children or waste it fighting for useless


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,JIS
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:14 PM

The right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, yet we place restrictions on speech that are generally uncontroversial. The framers said nothing about restricting child pornography, but it has been held to not be protected speech. The framers made no exceptions for incitement or fighting words but they have held to not be protected speech. The framers made no exceptions for obscenity, but you still can't play George Carlins 7 Dirty Words sketch on the radio or on television without getting fined and risking your broadcasting license.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment gives a right to bear arms, but it does not give a right to bear arms sans any regulations or restrictions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:13 PM

Finally, yeah.....I got it now........I guess I thought it was obvious but I guess you needed to state it......which confused me. Easily done.....


Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Midchuck
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:13 PM

Summary from Wickipedia:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Of course, a Court with more Justices appointed by a liberal administration could very well turn around on the issue.

Peter


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 08:10 PM

Spaw - is that assault rifles or jackasses or wild boars that should be readily available?

Or all three?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM

My point was for those who insist that the 2nd Amendment does not allow for individual ownership of guns.

If someone does recognize the right to own a gun, then we can proceed to work on what constitutes "reasonable restrictions."

Those who think the 2nd Amendment applies only to a militia have no reason to suggest restrictions since they feel the right to private gun ownership does not exist.

I have now said the same thing three times. Is it clear yet?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:37 PM

PeeDee....Have you got one loose? "Militia" is used in the 2nd as is "bear arms" and "keep" and a few other words.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I said that for me, I have no desire to repeal the 2nd amendment but I think we can get by with restructuring what it means. I just had some other jackass tell me he needed his assault rifle for wild boar hunting. Now THERE is a real reason to make sure they are readily available!

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:36 PM

BG!.... "All women have balls. They're just higher up."

Fookin PRICELESS LASS! Hahahahahaha! Love it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:06 PM

Henry Krinkle -- All women have balls. They're just higher up.

(And Sarah Palin is an exceptionally poor example of "Woman" -- beauty queen with no brains to speak of. Not a lot of walkin' around smarts, either. Just my opinion.)

Linn


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 07:01 PM

Once again, about half of all Mudcat posters reject the idea of private gun ownership.

They say the 2nd Amendment applies to a militia, hence you and I cannot own a gun as an individual.

Why do these people rattle off lists of needed gun laws and restriction?

They must first admit that Joe Public has the right to own a gun.

It's just common sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

That is delusional, pdq...

With that logic you could say that 1/2 the people don't believe that people should own and drive cars if they aren't allowed to drive a 100 mph in a school zone...

I don't give a rat's ass about "private gun ownership"... I own guns...

BTW, there is a reason why we don't put loaded guns in the crib with the baby...

Get real... Lots of stuff can hurt other people and we regulate those things... Back to cars... Cars can kill people... That's why we have laws about how they are used and who owns them...

With your logic everyone should be able to drive anywhere they want in any manner they want...

Get real, man...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:41 PM

At least half the posters on Mudcat don't believe the 2nd Amendment allow for private ownership of guns.

Roughly the same group of people rattle of their personal list of mandatory gun laws and restrictions.

If you don't have the right to start with, how can you pass laws to control something you don't have?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 06:32 PM

Yeah, strings is right...

This ain't rocket surgery here...

*Proficiency certification

*Registration

*No gun show loopholes

*Background checks with updated systems

*No assault rifles

*No big clips

Where's the "Obama is going to take away your gun" in that unless you are someone who clearly shouldn't have a gun???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:54 PM

It's a very simple solution. Have gun owners licensed and tested. Restrict automatic weapons. Make it more difficult for people to own guns.

Guns should not be owned by everyone and their purpose should be carefully defined.
No one needs to pack and carry concealed weapons.

Stop trying to be macho with gun ownership. It's not a phallic symbol.

Support the Brady Institute and campaign. They are actually doing something about the problem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:36 PM

It was of course a pretty unclear constitutional provision, reflecting the fact that it was cobbled tgether by a committee of squabbling frontier politicians with agendas of their own. Not exactly Holy Writ.

But even as it stands the clear element in it that shoots holes through the gun lobbies claims is that it doesn't talk about a right of people to bear arms, it talks about the right of "the people" - and that this a whole different thing, "The people" acting collectively have the right to do all kinds of things that individual people can't do - and the other way round. "The people" cant get married, for example.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:35 PM

Kendall... "There are some very sharp minds here, all have an opinion of what's wrong with America, none with a realistic solution."

Assuming you are talking about the "gun problem"... NONE? Not even me?

Good gun laws. Education. Raising the standard of living. Said it scores of times on many gun threads in this forum.

I give up.

I just thank God we have so many guns and good ol boys in NA. I explained that more than one thread years ago. I brought it up in an interview with a lewy and two colonels when I was being tested for Royal Military College when I was 18. You can search it if you want. I just can't be arsed with any of this shite anymore and it don't matter on accounta, apparently, nobody thinks I have anything of merit to offer. *I* can't do anything about the problem in the US. I don't live there... so I CAN'T care about it anymore. I can only be sad when I watch TV news.

Oh... yeah... shit on the Yanks because they got guns? citizens and military? That is just fuckin laughable! No, I do not agree with what they do around the world militarily in concert with big money. But, I like my standard of living and I like their ideals so I just hope they will do the right things in the long run, on all counnts. If you have a better bet or a better solution(s), put it (them) on the table.

Otherwise, I gotta lock and load on accounta you guys scare me more than one crazy killing kids BECAUSE you won't even take the necessary steps to stop these kids from being killed. You all just want to grandstand and shout the other guy down and never get the job done because your egos are in the way... it's shameful.

Have fun with it. Rant and rave and point fingers and stand yer ground. BOTH sides. That all youse ever do. And children die while you take the moral high ground.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:30 PM

Unfortunately, John, some of the government is paid for by big business, including arms manufacturers and the NRA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 05:04 PM

Ya gets the gubmint ya pays for Cap'n


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:23 PM

Actually in many cases our militia ran like rabbits when they met the red coats. Without the French we never could have beaten them.

Anyway, folks, I have tried in my best American English, and some Anglo Saxon to explain where I'm coming from, and it was like trying to pull a Bobcat off a wool blanket.

We need federal regulations to deal with this problem, and that is going to be very hard to do as long as we don't trust our government.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

Sarah Palin. A woman with balls.
=(:-( °)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 04:12 PM

> ...with women being urged, more and more,so it seems to me, to behave like the worst kind of man...

Urged by other women.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM

As usual. Lizzie is the sensible voice.
=(:-( ))


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:49 PM

Not by me, Sandy, I'll still call her 'mother'.   :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:41 PM

Yeh, I know that Backwoodsman, but that is only a matter of title. The consort of the king is usually called queen but Camilla will perhaps be just addressed as rotweiler.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Backwoodsman sans Cookie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:31 PM

Wrong, Sandy! Camilla won't be the Queen if Charles becomes King, she will be the Consort - exactly the same situation as exists with Prince Philip, the Queen's husband and Consort.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:19 PM

Wow....that is bad...........I greatly would prefer the Toad.......

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:06 PM

Yeh Spaw and you could look forward to Camilla being your queen! Off with your head! :<)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 03:00 PM

LOL@Kendall.....Hey my friend, I have an idea!!! Let's blame the Brits for this entirely.

See, every ruling culture as far back as you care to look had a standing army and of course they used it as that is what happens when you have a large standing army.   When the British Empire ruled the world they did so with a giant standing army. Then some of us pesky colonists got it in our head to rebel and the home grown militia served us well. So in the effort to stay away from the standing army which we had proven able to beat with just a militia, those dumbass founders wrote up the goofball amendment which seems to have gotten us all in so much trouble.

So you see, if the Brits had not stuck with the standing army tradition AND HAD put down the rebellion as proper army should, all would be okay now.

.............'Ceptin' we'd all be talkin' funny and eatin' toad in the hole.



Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:45 PM

Who ever closed that other thread, thanks. What took you so long?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:40 PM

MtheGM, I used to think you were one of the more intelligent members here, but your recent statement that people who disagree with my opinion is a pain in the ass is simply not true. Go back and read it again.

Look, we need some clarity of thought here. I am NOT defending the gun nuts, and I am not supporting the NRA, or the do nothing government.
What I AM< doing is trying to point out what we are up against in the regulations department, and the quandary of how to get around 200 years of a bad habit. You folks who don't live here are only aware of the lack of control we have here, and apparently, you can't understand why that lack is such a problem. Put your minds on a solution and get off the raving about the obvious!

If this is not clear enough then you are not as bright as I thought. I got As and Bs in English in high school.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:22 PM

I am not alone around here in having a child go off the deep end and then try to access the mental health system. For us things eventually worked out pretty well but that doesn't mean I'm happy with the "system." I'm not. One great thing that did happen was that the kids at school had been trained enough to feel free in reporting his dangerous behaviors which I'm sorry to say we missed. So as a given we need more, better, and easier in the mental health field.

We need to start seeing ways to tone back the violence which we have built into the American culture as this also comes into play. This too has much to do with mental health. I saw Rudy Giulani the other night say that "74% of these shootings were mental health related and 25% related to guns." He might be right but that doesn't mean we can just forget about the 25% does it.

We are long past the time to address the gun laws but let's get started now. Diane Feinstein is introducing an assault weapons bill on Day One of the new Congress. Already they're lining up with the "slippery slope" argument and assorted other 2nd amendment issues.

I love all of you but on this issue we may have to agree to disagree. Let me put it bluntly. Fuck the slippery slope. I am an actual card carrying member of the ACLU and I would never expect enough to happen to ever do away with the 2nd but I'm also sick and tired and really pissed that we not doing a damned thing!   I think a later model supreme court might be willing to interpret the amendment differently. The founders were scared to death of having a standing army as they just tend to cost lots of money and get into unneeded trouble. They were right of course.............But do we still need an armed militia? No, but hunting and shooting are (or can be) reasonable sports. Just what sport do you use an AK47 in?

Let's make some sensible laws though. Consider joining me in saying "Fuck the Slippery Slope" and let's do away with assault weapons. Then let's close up the gun show loopholes and tighten the federal requirement on background checks and waiting periods. Let's also make gun owners show proof of a locked storage cabinet(s) whenever the make purchases. Other small rules and better enforcement could make a big difference to Giulani's 25%.


Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:14 PM

Street gangs in Canada are arming themselves with handguns and assault rifles mostly smuggled from the USA. Halifax, the city I know best and once considered its streets safe to walk at night now has the second highest per capita murder rate in Canada. In the USA gun control seems to be a state government responsibility and some states have good gun control and some have little or none. Problem is that anyone can purchase in a lax state and transport it legally or otherwise over state lines. Canada has a fairly open border with the USA and enterprising smugglers seem able to bypass customs without any great difficulty. Therefore we in Canada share your gun control problem even though we have much stricter laws here.
Part of the answer was given by Bruce when he advocates harsher treatment for crooks using guns. I agree with him but Canadian courts see it otherwise, and lazy prosecuters accept plea bargains allowing the crook to plead guilty to a lesser or a single charge. Con-current sentences, double time credits and early manditory parole mean the crook is back on the street much sooner than he would be in the USA.
Kendall, I have the highest respect for you and your opinion, but we in Canada are also greatly affected by your laws and we share the shoes in which you walk! I know that some of our problem is of our own making and but our countries share a large bed the damn bedbugs don't care on which side they feed!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:10 PM

The NRA and the gun lobby are, unfortunately, not the deciding element in this issue.

The gun manufacturers would start going broke and the NRA would look pretty silly if there weren't a massive demand by Americans for firearms.

Think about it: 310 million guns but only 300 million Americans. And the guns are still rolling off the assembly lines.

But the reasons - never fully explained - must go a lot deeper than the NRA lobbying Congress and threatening the public with tales of Obama coming with thugs to get their guns.

The people want guns, dude! Men and women! Guns 'n guns 'n guns 'n guns. It don't matter for what: they just want 'em! They crave 'em!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM

Well, as expected, lots of spurious reasons from the usual suspects for retaining their personal armouries, so all I can say is this: that any country that loves its guns more than it loves its children (and can I just mention Kent State University here) has no right to consider itself civilised.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 02:03 PM

I think that Charmion's idea (6:49 AM)of requiring all gun owners to be members of the National Guard is a good one. That would ensure that anyone 'packing' has had training in the use of weaponry and counseling in the utilities and ethics thereof and that could only be a good thing.
Further, some people might well decide that the requirement is too onerous or restricting and give up their weapons.

Most importantly, it would be a start. A start in meaningful dialogue. And just maybe it would be acceptable to the NRA/gun lobby.

(Far off topic: I wish people would be more aware of the difference between 'discreet' and 'discrete'. The misuse always sounds dumb.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:37 PM

"Lizzie, you know as well as I that Fathers don't have that Mothers instinct."

Not always the way. My uncle had WAY more maternal instinct than his ex-wife. Had his daughter been brought up by him, she'd have been a very different person I think, far more thoughtful and intelligent..
He's gay, as is his ex-wife...

My Dad was far more protective of me than my mother, who did not have much 'instinct' about me at all, for she was way too busy thinking of herself most of the time, but then, my Mum had many problems for various reasons. Had my Dad not been there, I don't know how I'd have got through it all at times.

And, I would argue that the 'Mother's Instinct' is dead and dying,for I now see so many women who seem to not give a toss about their babies and children these days...We've killed off Femininity and Motherhood, with women being urged, more and more,so it seems to me, to behave like the worst kind of man...

And now, back to guns...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:30 PM

Just an observation. Take it for what it's worth to you:

I live in a very rural area in the southeastern US. Pretty much everyone around here owns guns, and shooting them is a favorite weekend activity for many. It's rare to go more than a few minutes, particularly this time of year, without hearing a gunshot or two from someone hunting or target shooting. I was just outside for over an hour catching up on some chores and did not hear a single gunshot during that period. To say that's unusual is a huge understatement. It's actually pretty much unheard of. The gun crowd seems to have declared a moratorium on shooting. The only time I can remember it being this quiet around here was after 09/11.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:28 PM

Wether or not "People kill people" or "guns kill people" or "people with guns kill people" it's obvious that semi auto pistols and rifles are very efficient tools for killing a lot of people quickly, especially defenseless children. While they're not the only part of the problem we need to recognize that their use is a large part of it and procede from there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: pdq
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:27 PM

"...rather than just consisting of his acting all wounded because we can't make out where exactly he is coming from." ~ MtheGM

Truth be known, it is not always easy to tell where anybody is "coming from" all the time.

I am a minor player on Mudcat and post an average of twice per day.

I have no plans to enlarge my role here, not do I have any authority to become an "enforcer".

I am simply pointing out that personal attacks don't win arguments. Besides, they are supposed to be banned on Mudcat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:10 PM

I thank all you folks who are sending me your support via PMs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:08 PM

pdq ~~ In what way did questioning the validity as argument of Kendall's statement that he found opposition to his views 'a pain in the ass' constitute a 'personal attack' on him? I should love to 'discuss the issue' with him -- if I could find anything he had said that was worth discussing, rather than just consisting of his acting all wounded because we can't make out where exactly he is coming from.

~M~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 01:05 PM

Lizzie, you know as well as I that Fathers don't have that Mothers instinct.

I'm one of the kids of which you speak. My Father didn't give a shit about anyone but his bottle of booze. We had no male role model and one of my brothers acted up, quit school, raised hell, broke into a store with his no good buddies, but Mother coddled him until he spent a night in jail for decking a cop. If I even mentioned his behavior she got really protective.

Now, before I go, let me clarify something. This saying People kill people is absolutely true. Gun violence doesn't start with a gun, it starts in the twisted mind of a person. A gun is only dangerous in the wrong hands, just like a chain saw, butcher knife or car.

When I stated that many of the regs that John mentioned were already in place, I was referring to Connecticut where this horror happened.
Got that, John P?
Now I believe that all assault weapons should be banned just like sub machine guns have been for many years. No one uses a AK 47 or a AR 15 to hunt anything but people.
As for hand guns, only law enforcement officers and retired law men who qualify for a concealed permit should be allowed to carry

There, that's my opinion, for what it's worth, and that aint much.

We still need a realistic solution, but all I see here is opinions of the problem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:54 PM

Thou shalt not contradict the omniscient and immutable Saint Liz of Blather.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: kendall
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

One or two? too bad thats not the reality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

What Bee-dub said


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:27 PM

So it's not going to happen again, is it?
I mean this only happened because the guy had psychological problems did it?
So how many people with mental problems have access to guns?
How many people who have access to guns, have mental problems, and of those, how many KNOW they have problems?
It's now becom e such a regular occurence, we now only wonder where it's going to happen next time.
It WILL continue to happen, and the reason why is pretty obvious.
BTW who would want to invade the US? Do you think they would do it without flattening large parts of the country, and the people first?
Just think Baghdad, or Japan, or many other places that have been invaded. After a form of blitzkrieg.
One or two men with a pistol ain't gonna deter anybody.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Dec 12 - 12:16 PM

2/3 of a majority to changes is not democracy; 50%+1 is democracy!

Decisions made by 50%+1 are also subject to being overturned or repealed when the political winds turn just a few degrees. The Founders put those 2/3 and 3/4 majority provisions into the Constitution to insulate the amendment process from the vagaries of politics and public opinion. If an amendment has enough support to survive the process, it's probably not going to be repealed. It's only happened once.

If 50%+1 were the standard for amending the Constitution, the rights of those in the minority would be trampled. The only reason an amendment declaring marriage to be legally defined as between a man and a woman, thus making same sex marriage illegal, has not been brought before Congress is that it probably wouldn't survive the 2/3 and 3/4 majority requirements. If 50%+1 were the rule, it would pass in a heartbeat and there'd be no legal gay marriage anywhere in the US.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 11 April 6:13 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.