Divided Government Cannot Survive

44 replies [Last post]
The Shadow
The Shadow's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2008

The 2012 election showed as always that half the US is liberal and half conservative. We are right back to where we were in 1860. The issues are different today but the results are the same. The National Government remains liberal and through its military power forces the conservative half to accept policies they will never concede to.
The Republican Party is dead, never to be conservative again. The Democrats will grow stronger by bringing in more minority emigrants and promising more government handouts. In this election 24 States voted Republican and 26 Democrat. The popular vote was almost 50-50. Given that the Republican Party is dead, what are the possible future outcomes?
A. The liberals will forever control the nation if all things remain the same. But all things will not remain the same.
B. The Federal government will collapse under Democratic policies.
1. The Federal government debt will never paid down much less off.
2. Spending will continue which means the government will continue to borrow and print money to pay for social programs and others to borrow and print devaluing the dollar.
3. The US credit rating will continue to fall, creating a difficulty to sell bonds to pay for social programs.
4. Taxes will rise to make up the difference and people won’t be able to pay their taxes, because,
5. Unemployment will continue to rise as businesses lay-off more people to avoid costs of government regulations.
6. As more people go on welfare and unemployment checks, there will be fewer taxpayers to support government spending.
7. The value of the dollar will fall requiring more dollars to buy the same amount of goods and services. Even those with jobs won’t be able to pay all their bills and will exhaust their savings if they even have any. Most people don’t have any savings because they live off credit cards, which expands their debt.
8. As governments and individuals ability to pay their expenses continue to rise, the paper dollar will collapse.
9. At this point riots and thefts will be numerous so that the federal government will no longer be able to protect the people and the nation will break-up with every man, woman and child having to protect themselves.
10. A majority of the people will then become “mean as hell” extreme conservatives forming their own regional governments.
11. The military and local police will support these regional governments or,
12. They may over-throw the Federal government and put the Nation under dictatorial control.
13. Whichever way it goes liberalism will be dead, a new nation will be formed and a new monetary system will be created.
A divided nation cannot stand, unlimited spending cannot continue, and during the break-up process there will be decades of enormous pain and suffering for everyone. This would have happened regardless of which party won the 2011 election, Democracy is a failed experiment. The People have shown that they cannot govern themselves. The people have shown that they cannot govern themselves.
When Benjamin Franklin stepped out of the constitutional convention, he was asked, what type of government do we have? Franklin replied, “a republic if the people can keep it”. The people have been unable to keep it.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
This is why our Government no longer works..

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/sandy-aid-package-includes-...

Sandy Aid Package Includes Millions for Smithsonian, Space Center, Forests

But don't worry Government is going to cut spending... Didn't you get the news?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
SL & Sandy dollars

It's called "jump on the gravy train before it leaves the station" and they ALL do it! And we are the fools who put them into office!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Fear?

Until relatively recently, people of different ideologies, religions, etc. belonged to both of our major political parties. As a young person, I remember liberal and conservative opinions discussed by Democrats and Republicans. Today, there are very few people of color who fear 'white' people. There appeared to be a concentrated effort to encourage fear of those who were different than 'whites'. Lee Atwater and his not so subtle strategy worked in some regions of our country. Here we are, according to Shadow and others where we were in the 1860's. I hope not. Our foreign enemies are watching us destroy our country from within. We proved that we would not bow to fear after 9/11. Americans can unite and overcome this so- called fear of those who are 'different' based on skin color, ethnicity, and/or religion.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Mass killings

Republican and Democratic politicians have been united in their cowardice in the face of the NRA bullies.

Today it was the murder of elementary school children and their teachers in Connecticut. A few days before it was a shooting in a shopping mall in Oregon. Before that a mass killing in California. Earlier it was a killing at a worship service in Wisconsin. Before that a theater in Colorado. Virginia Tech, and the list goes on and on. Twenty-four mass killings in America since 2006.

These killings have come as the number of guns in America has proliferated and gun control laws have been relaxed in most states. Driven by fear mongering by the NRA, the gun dealers, and their gun worshiper followers, Americans have bought guns in record numbers.

Now guns are easily available to any disturbed or angry person who decides to strike out against those he thinks have offended him or at total innocent strangers. Many times it is a suicide act taking others with him.

It is time to get guns in America under control, and put an end to the silly idea that more guns make America a safer place. More guns and their easier availability did not make that elementary school safer today. And the next school threatened by guns could be anywhere in America including Fayette County Georgia.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - Tragedy

Nothing, nothing can stop this type of thing. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in this country along with California and NY. The school that was attacked had locked doors and you can only gain entry by being "buzzed" in. This criminal was allowed in because his mom worked at the school.

So, what's your solution? Repeal the Bill of Rights?

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Guns and mass killings

My solution, PTO, is not to interpret the Bill of Rights to allow any idiot to possess a weapon (either automatic or semi-automatic) capable of mass killings.

Do you not think our Founding Fathers had more common sense and good judgement than the dangerous fools running he NRA?

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
PTO and mass killings

So what is your solution?

Make our elementary schools armed prisons? Arm every Principal, teacher, and staff member? Arm every child over four years old?

The argument that more guns make us safer is wrong and sick and must be rejected.

Richard Ford
Richard Ford's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/25/2006
Lion

I understand your complete disregard for anything to do with firearms. A lot of people have these fears.
However, you still have not offered any type of reasonable solution. You just seem ready to have "Ban All Guns" mentality.
I would like to point you to a story on Drudge today where a man in China entered an elementary school with a knife and slashed/stabbed 27 children. Your first comment will more than likely be that none of the children died, Praise God that none did, but what chance would the children have if he wanted to kill them instead of harm them??
Of all the massacres that you pointed out over the years, you forgot one. Pearl, Mississippi 1997 (my home) a student showed up on campus and started firing. One of the staff ran to his vehicle and retrieved his handgun and, without killing the young man, he used his firearm to stop the student from getting into the buildings where students were hiding.
So yes, an appropriate answer is to allow "Responsible and Trained" staff to have concealed weapons for protection against nutjobs like this.
Just my take on it.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Ford, Lion, & Answer

Arming school staff (some) sounds like a reasonable idea to me--and publicly advertise it so that all the wackos know that they will face armed challenge should they decide to attack. I suspect that there are already a number of school officials who are licensed carry oncealed than we would guess.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
ATG and guns

Arming school staff is a sick and crazy idea.
What kind of America do you live in?
There is little or no evidence that armed civilians can act to prevent mass killings.
This idea is just a fantasy of the NRA and its gun nut followers.
I would not ban all guns but I would come closer to that situation than the idea that all weapons, assault weapons included, are OK in my country.

Richard Ford
Richard Ford's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/25/2006
Lion

Lion, as I feared your fears of firearms overrides your reasoning.
I live in the kind of America where citizens have the right and responsibility to protect themselves.
I go back to my previous post. You gave many examples of where a crazed person with a gun did mass damage. I gave you one example.
Can you see the the difference here??

In your examples, there was no one present with the means to protect themselves against the threat and were victims. In the example I gave one person, let me repeat, ONE PERSON with a firearm was able to not only protect himself, but also numerous students.

Even in the face of the events of the day, we should never let emotions override reason..

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Ford and guns

I do not fear firearms. I fear the ignorant bullies who worship guns and glorify them to support their manhood. And I fear the America they have made in which anyone--including the sick, angry, and deranged can have access to guns to kill as their twisted minds drive them.

Guns are not the solution; guns are the problem.

Richard Ford
Richard Ford's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/25/2006
Lion

So what is your solution??
I have given you mine

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
There is no ‘one’ thing that

There is no ‘one’ thing that can be done that will prevent these tragedies from happening but we can do things to reduce the chances of it happening at all and mitigate the extent of the slaughter when it does happen.

The first thing that comes to mind is:

Make military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines, less readily available to the general public.

Improve background checks and close loopholes including all sales by unlicensed sellers.

Enact laws to help law enforcement combat firearms trafficking that supplies guns to criminals.

Use microstamping that can match bullet casings found at a crime scene to the gun used.

All this can take place today and I wouldn’t have to worry about anyone taking my guns away.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Gort & weaponry

You DO know that the CT shooter used pistols (registered to his Mother), not a long gun don't you?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
AHG, I’m sure that fact will

AHG, I’m sure that fact will bring much comfort to the families of the dead.

I did read the killer had a Bushmaster rifle in the car he drove to the massacre. There is nothing better than having a good assault rifle by your side, to enhance the mental fantasy of a lunatic on a killing spree, eh?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Gort- Where should the focus be?
Quote:

Make military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines, less readily available to the general public.

In Switzerland when a boy turns 19 he is conscripted to service. About 80% are taken. They do a year of active service and then go into something like our reserves until they reach the age of 34. They keep all of their equipment with them in their homes. That includes their assault rifles. All citizens are encouraged to own weapons, even females and those not deemed able to perform military service. As a result about 85% of all homes there have weapons in them and most of those have assault weapons. Still Switzerland has one of the worlds lowest crime rates.

I think America has focused to much on the tool (gun) and not enough on the person using it. I think that we need to look at our laws as they pertain to mental illness. The way we treat (or ignore) our mentally ill in this country is, or should be criminal. Most of these shooters in these events have a history of some sort of mental illness. Yet they roam free and untreated because you can't force a person to get treatment unless they have been proven to be a threat to themselves or others. Sometimes that is too late.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
G35, I’m pretty sure the

G35, I’m pretty sure the Swiss train the conscripts before they let them take the weapons home with them, eh?

Personally, I think we would have less gun related deaths if people were formally trained on the care, use, safety, and responsibilities of the weapons they keep in their home. I recommend my old drill sergeant, (or people like him,) to do the training. You don’t pass the training, no gun for you!

Where I think we should put the focus, is for everyone to close their eyes for a minute and imagine a room full of kindergarten children.

At the front of the room enters a homicidal maniac spraying the children with bullets from two semiautomatic pistols.

In slow motion, imagine the bullets exiting the barrel of the guns with a flash and roar, pass through the air, and smash into the flesh and bone of young children as they scream, “Mommy” or “Daddy”.

Now open your eyes. Can you still pretend that we can’t do anything about this BS? Is some lame anecdote or factoid a good enough excuse to prevent us from trying to do something? I don’t think so.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Gort-We should do something
Quote:

Now open your eyes. Can you still pretend that we can’t do anything about this BS? Is some lame anecdote or factoid a good enough excuse to prevent us from trying to do something? I don’t think so.

Never did I say that we shouldn't do something. I was suggesting that we focus on the mental illness of the shooters rather than the guns themselves. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the way this country treats it mentally ill. It is a shame. On the one hand they are ignored and denied treatment because they can't pay while on the other they are allowed to refuse treatment and still walk among us. They suffer and ultimately so do we. And I do agree that anyone that wants a weapon should be trained on the use and care of it.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
G35, as a practical matter, I

G35, as a practical matter, I can’t imagine how the, “focus on the mental illness of the shooters rather than the guns themselves,” will help reduce or mitigate gun violence. What exactly are you recommending?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Does this clear it up?
Quote:

What exactly are you recommending?

I'm recommending that this country spend more time and money treating the mentally ill. Those guns did not fire themselves. Take away the guns and these people will find other ways to inflict harm, like Tim McVeigh did. And these people are suffering themselves. They're not getting the attention/treatment that they deserve. So they lash out. If you've ever had a family member or friend with mental illness you'd understand how broken the system is in regard to them.

Gangs and criminals are a different matter of course. But still banning guns won't work. We tried to ban alcohol and you see what happened. We've tried to ban drugs. Again that hasn't worked. So all you'll do by banning guns is give criminals free rein to do whatever they want.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
G35, if that’s the way you

G35, if that’s the way you want to do it, it’s okay with me. I just don’t see how it would work.

How would you like to have the job to take guns away from the mentally ill ?

FYI, I never said I wanted to ban anything.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
I can't be any clearer

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son

If you read this and still don't understand you never will.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
G35, I’m not against your

G35, I’m not against your approach, I just don’t think it’s possible to do. Mental health isn’t like ‘missing a finger,’ it’s much more subjective. Civil liberties, rights to privacy, confidentiality between doctors and patients, I’m sorry, I just don’t see it happening.

On the other hand I’m happy to see you are becoming a health care advocate.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort- its very obvious you dont know much about guns

You also seem to be very worked up about assault rifles. I'm not sure why though. It seems like this CT guy had an assault rifle in his car, but killed everyone with a pair of pistols. Also, since he was only 20, he shouldnt legally be allowed to have them in the first place. But apparently criminals dont always follow the rules. Columbine, Virginia tech, all used pistols. The worst mass school killing in American history happened in the 20's, when fully automatic weapons could be mail orderd to your house, but the guy used bombs. The worst school killings in the U.K. and in canada both used pistols. The worst school killing in Germany was a guy who used a pistol and a pump shotgun in Erfurt. The second worst in Germany was a guy who had a club and a flamethrower he made out of an insecticide sprayer. Yes, the guy in Aurora used an assault rifle, but it was the high-capacity magazine jamming that made him stop shooting. Interesting that if the high cap ban was still in place, MORE people would have died. High cap mags are something else that always gets targeted by anti gun people, as if you cant just carry more with you. As a former military member, I can tell you from experience that in practiced hands it takes less than half a second to change a mag out. I do it all the time. Banning them makes about as much sense as the high cap soda ban in NYC. As if you couldnt just buy 2 or 3 sodas if you wanted. But, thats liberal logic, believing that if you tell someone to stop, they will. Youre a fool if you think banning assault weapons or high-caps will prevent any crime at all.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Liberal/conservative?

Wake up! If Americans can't unite on this issue which is destroying our unity, then the persons seeking further division in our country win! Gun Control/ no Gun Control is not the main issue here! Who and what is causing the violence? Take a look at 'gangs' and the 'militias' supported by hate groups - of all colors.. Joe's insertion of race is interesting. That's always the other elephant in the room when the goal is to divide Americans. When parents lose a child, they grieve - regardless of the color of their skin. Liberal children bleed just the same as conservative children. Sandy Hook School and the community it served had all the standards that concerned parents want - liberal or conservative. 20 babies are dead. Guns were purchased legally. There are other issues here than 'control', race, political ideology

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault, actually I had four

Renault, actually I had four recommendations. AHG, G35, and you are the ones focused on assault rifles.

FYI, I never said anything about banning any kind of weapons. That was your Pavlovian conditioning taking over whenever a discussion on this subject is attempted. You are seeing things that are not there!

Renault, that’s French isn’t it?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Wish there was an easy solution

I came across a website in Connecticut this morning that had pictures of some of the slain children and teachers. I wish I hadn't. I noticed that I had tears streaming down my face on to the keyboard while just wondering WHY? WHY? WHY?

"banning this" or "arming that" or simply rounding up every person with some type of mental illness and warehousing them won't solve the basic problem. Neither will the cries of "bring God back into the classroom."

We(USA) have failed miserably in any kind of global leadership role. We glorify and promote violence like it's a drug and export it worldwide. Sex..err, not so much. It's better to have movies with a lot of bad guys with their brains splattered everywhere than two people having sex. Whatever.

I hope the generation of my young adult children can reverse this decline that "my generation" has horribly failed at. I'm not advocating any kind of censorship or banning anything, but maybe we can stop glorifying absolute **** mvoies like Silence of the Lambs and extremely violent video games? Maybe make your kids go outside once a while and have human interaction? Here's an alternative to worshipping killing people in video games or some kind of serial killer?

No easy solutions, but there has to be better than this.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
NUK *Correct*

I think as the analysis of the young man's life unfolds, we'll find several significant factors one of which will be the role of these violent video games and other media. These video games actually reward violent behavior and, for many, that stimulus is the road to addiction.

Back in our younger days, our elders warned us of what would happen if we let this "crap" get a foot-hold in our society. Lo-and-behold, look what happened.

Now we are faced with trying to picking-up the pieces.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
NUK/CY

I agree. It's not too late to start making the corrections. There will be many who will say it's too late; or too difficult to change a culture. I've lived through situations that were never supposed to change; gosh - at least let's try! Even if we don't know the specific reason for this tragedy - at least the conversation has started about CHANGE. I have worked in situations in public education where we had armed personnel on site. In this situation, unless they were at the right place at the right time, I don't know if their presence would have made any difference. It's the same in some communities where random gun shots have killed children in the sanctity of their own home. NUK - I imagine a lot of people have cried. At least one good has come from this tragedy - the human race can come together to express love and compassion in a tragic situation. As humans, we are not lost.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Gort - here is a direct quote from you
Quote:

Make military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines, less readily available to the general public.

if you werent talking about a ban, then please clarify. How will you make them "less readily available?" And what will banning purely cosmetic accessories like bayonet lugs and flash hiders ( the things that make something an "assault" rifle) do to prevent crime?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Renault, I’m against a ban

Renault, I’m against a ban because most people that own them take their responsibilities seriously to prevent unauthorized use of these weapons. It would be a slap in their face to ban them.

The problem is some people are too cavalier about their responsibilities and these weapons too easily get into the hands of people that shouldn’t be let near them.

I’m not a lawyer or a lawmaker but my opinion is, if you want to own one of these weapons, perhaps background checks, training, and ability to safeguard the weapon against unauthorized use, should come under more scrutiny than it does now.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Better ban machetes too

That's the preferred weapon for the ultra-violent scum calling themselves the MS-13 gang and they are growing rather rapidly in the USA. They like to hack body parts off before getting around to the actual killing.

cogitoergofay
cogitoergofay's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/11/2006
Connecticut's very tough gun laws

Connecticut's very tough gun laws made absolutely no difference at all. Connecticut law (1) requires you to register yourself before buying a gun (2) requires registration of all guns (4) has a minimum age of 21 for gun purchases and (4) bans assault weapons. All four were violated.

I will give up my guns when the liberals give up knives, abortions and standard lawn fertilizer. And like Nuk said, add machetes to the list.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Lion- you have a biased interpretation of the facts.
Quote:

There is little or no evidence that armed civilians can act to prevent mass killings.

the reason for this might just be that with the exception of the Tucson shooting, all of the mass killings you mention that have happened since 2006 have been in "gun free" zones. apparently, everyone read the signs, except the criminals. And speaking of not being able to read the signs, They recently banned gun ownership in Austrailia. Crime immediately went up. ESPECIALLY home invasions. Because with all the law abiding citizens turning in their guns, criminals know there are no nasty surprises waiting for them. Did banning guns help that? Obviously not. You also seem to be very worked up about assault rifles. I'm not sure why though. It seems like this CT guy had an asault rifle in his car, but killed everyone with a pistol. Also, since he was only 20, he shouldnt legally be allowed to have them in the first place. But I guess criminals always follow the rules, right Lion? Columbine, Virginia tech, all used pistols. The worst mass school killing in American history happened in the 20's, when fully automatic weapons could be mail orderd to your house, but the guy used bombs. The worst school killings in the U.K. and in canada both used pistols. The worst school killing in Germany was a guy who used a pistol and a pump shotgun in Erfurt. The second worst in Germany was a guy who had a club and a flamethrower he made out of an insecticide sprayer. Yes, the guy in Aurora used an assault rifle, but it was the high-capacity magazine jamming that made him stop shooting. Interesting that if the high cap ban was still in place, MORE people would have died. High cap mags are something else that always gets targeted by anti gun people, as if you cant just carry more with you. As a former military member, I can tell you from experience that in practiced hands it takes less than half a second to change a mag out. I do it all the time. It makes about as much sense as the high cap soda ban in NYC. As if you couldnt just buy 2 or 3 sodas if you wanted. But, thats liberal logic, believing that if you tell someone to stop, they will. Youre a fool if you think banning guns, specifically assault weapons or high-caps will prevent any crime at all. The clinton assault ban didnt.

Quote:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[6] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[7]

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[8]

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[9]

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[10] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[11] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[12] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[13] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of Brady Campaign's claim that the ban was responsible for violent crime's decline.[14]

even the brady centers report didnt say gun crime went down, just that assault rifles were used less. Lion, do a little research before you try to take away my rights by reacting emotionally and passing laws that make you feel like your doing good but actually endanger everyone instead.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
lion- duplicate

dupe

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Lion- arming school staff

Cops and soldiers expect that they may die in the line of duty. I know, I was one. Now it seems, we can add public school teachers to that list. But, maybe if the teachers or the principal had been allowed to carry, they wouldnt have HAD to die in the line of duty and 20 kids would still be alive. Cops and soldiers accept that risk, but they get guns to defend themselves with. If they didnt, Im sure recruiting would be a slightly harder job. Parents turn their kids over to me ( a current public school teacher) every day expecting me to keep them safe. If I am expected by society to keep them safe and risk my life doing so, why cant I have the right tools for the job, the same tools that everyone else in my situation (expected to defend others with my life) gets?

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Renault--Guns and schools

A gun in the classroom is not an educational tool and does make a school safer. This is a stupid and dangerous notion.

American schools should not be armed camps.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
lion- guns and schools
Quote:

A gun in the classroom is not an educational tool and does make a school safer.

and what research or sources can you cite that allows you to make that informed opinion? if schools are not safer with guns, the why do school resource officers carry them? When they passed a law banning weapons on the Ga tech campus, crime skyrocketed. We dont know if schools would be safer with a few armed teachers or not, because its never been tried in america to my knowledge. But it has been tried in other countries, specifically israel, to great success. The only thing we know for sure is that schools that DONT have guns inside them are easy pickings. You still refuse to answer the question i have put to you many times, why do the overwhelming majority of these shootings happen in "gun free" zones? is it just an extrordinary coincidence?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
We feel you, Lion...

...but please look up the number on traffic deaths compared to gun deaths. It doesn't justify anything but may put a different perspective on the 'guns are evil' debate. People will do stupid things in stupid ways resulting in stupid, revolting outcomes no matter what:

Motor vehicle traffic deaths - Number of deaths: 34,485; Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2

All firearm deaths - Number of deaths: 31,347; Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2

Source - 2009 CDC statistics

You just can't predict who's going to do what to whom and when and how; it's the bane of living in a free society. This disturbed soul was going to harm as many as possible in any way he could. If he didn't have a gun he would have probably made pipe bombs or any number of vile weapons; the Internet is an easy conduit to such info.

Yo
Yo's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/24/2007
I am a liberal for guns

I believe we should respect our founding fathers. Here is my compromise.

Muskets are the ONLY guns allowed in the USA since that is all that was available to our founding fathers.
I don't care if you conceal it, wear it like a purse, keep it under your car seat, or floss your teeth with it. Is is your right as an American.
As for the rest, GET RID OF THEM. We are an poorly educated country with some backwoods values still imbred in our culture.
They are simply replacements for lack of confidence, education or common sense.

Hunters. Use muskets.
Families. Use muskets
Criminals. use muskets... and remember when you re-load, me and the deer are kicking your f'n ass.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Yo- why thats stupid.

its stupid for assuming, yet again, that if you ban all guns besides muskets, that criminals will obey the law. Drugs are illegal, but criminals still smuggle them in. Do you think they wouldnt smuggle in modern weapons? Of course you realize they will, so why should the criminals have them but not you or I? If you want to respect our founding fathers, do so by heeding their words. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Also, its dumb for assuming amrican colonials had muskets. Most of them had rifles, something completely different. A technicality, but an important one, and heres why. The british army DID have muskets, which were inferior in range and accuracy to american rifles. The founding fathers, in writing the second amendment, (even if taken in its historical context) were ensuring that the average person had unrestricted access to firepower that was GREATER than the standing militaries and police forces of the day. Respecting that, you should not have any problem with civilian ownership of assault weapons and high cap magazines. Or you can admit that you are just being silly and have no idea what you are talking about.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Adam Lanza's uncle is a police officer

His mother's stepfather was a school principal for 26 years. Just unimaginable sorrow all the way around.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20121214/NEWS03/121219461/-1/OBITUARIES

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
It's been almost two years

And we are still faced with so-called random killing involving guns in the hands of the mentally unstable. Lots of ideas for working towards solutions. NO ACTION! Do we act, or become accustomed to this shame in American society .

Recent Comments