The right to bear arms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

If I were to continue my above theory of bravery as a function of proximity to the threat, I'm going to have to consider internet tough-guys. I propose that they are a group who falls squarely in the phony-brave category, ^ennison for instance.

---

Since I made the earlier semi-snarky remark about ennison, I want to add that I respect him and greatly enjoy his posts. I have never found him cowardly and did not mean to (nor did I) imply it. I have a low tolerance, though, for Yank bashing, especially when applied to such a polarizing issue for my country. But ennison is a hyperbolic cat, and I was just giving it back to him in a spirit of rough-ish fun.

Sancho, you're cool, too.

Is it me, or are the LitNet regulars acting a bit pissy these days? :)

Haha!

Pompey, you may be right about pissy-ness. Probably got my panties all in a bunch. Honestly I'm just trying to have a little fun.

Hey, here's a cool video of a brave soldier, named Fluffy:

http://youtu.be/mv3tJXpDlEM

Yeah, it's too bad Clopin and Ecurb aren't around. Those two always manage to hug it out. Heh heh. :grouphug:

Thanks for the video, too. I'd seen it before, but it's still pretty inspirational. I wonder if the person with the camera really should have been filming it, though. Blackbears are supposed to be cowards, but I still wouldn't want one in my living room.

The Victoria Cross is awarded for "valour in the face of the enemy." I've been looking at some of the citations -they almost beggar belief. From WW1 up to today, single handedly charging machine gun nests might get you one, though nowadays saving wounded collegues under fire is more the thing. In Victorian times, continuing to direct artillary with both your legs blown off would do. The common factors seem to be; showing complete disregard for personal saftey, acting on ones own initiative and being sucessful (though not necessarily alive) in acheiving the goal.
There are other kinds of bravery I'm sure, but putting your life on the line for a common benefit is the gold standard.

Groundhog day.

Some nut was running from the cops through the woods after firing on one officer after a road rage incident in our usually Mayberry type town. Rumour was he still had a gun. The helicopter from the police was practically landing in the field in front of the house, he was so low, but he kept circling around. Until my husband called and said "lock the doors and don't go outside" I thought it was a medivac in progress. After the prison break last summer, which had everyone freaked out in these parts for weeks, I was made very nervous. And as my husband had run out with the fire department looking for the guy, I wanted some peace of mind:willy_nilly:, so I loaded my husband's hunting rifle. I had been watching too much "Game of Thrones this week, as I was recupping from a nasty virus, so I was, without a doubt, ready to hold down the fort.

Mind you, I am anti-gun in general. I am not anti-hunting, but that is another story.

The thing is, the genie is out of the bottle. There are sooo many guns around, how do we control them all? The sheer number of weapons is monumental, and they make thousands more each day. Conflict.

"The thing is, the genie is out of the bottle. There are sooo many guns around, how do we control them all? The sheer number of weapons is monumental, and they make thousands more each day. Conflict. "

Suppose you make a start, anything, just the smallest of starts.

How about deterrents for crimes committed with guns. We could bring back public executions and mutilations. We could dust off the old rack, the wheel, and maybe even the iron maiden. I know there's a cat-o-nine tails around here somewhere. That might help. Perhaps we could just remove all the trigger-fingers of all the convicted felons in all the prisons here. Now where's my meat clever?

Mmm, wait, uhh ... this thread is in the serious-discussion area.

Sorry.

'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

How about deterrents for crimes committed with guns. We could bring back public executions and mutilations. We could dust off the old rack, the wheel, and maybe even the iron maiden. I know there's a cat-o-nine tails around here somewhere. That might help. Perhaps we could just remove all the trigger-fingers of all the convicted felons in all the prisons here. Now where's my meat clever?

Mmm, wait, uhh ... this thread is in the serious-discussion area.

Sorry.

---

The death penalty is an extremely ineffective deterrent to crime. Crime has gone down since 1977, not up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCabret

'
The death penalty is an extremely ineffective deterrent to crime. Crime has gone down since 1977, not up.

---

I was joking

Or just remove one tiny word from the 2nd amendment and you get "The right to keep bear arms".

Roar!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

"

Suppose you make a start, anything, just the smallest of starts.

---

Hand guns are a no no. If they come in, I leave. It's understood. That's always been my small start.

I wouldn't care if I get shot. I have a partial death wish, anyway. But kids live here. They have all taken the hunter safety course. and friends don't have access to the cabinet where the rifles are. and the kids are much more concerned with blogging for human rights and playing Mario cart on the Wii.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

I was joking

---

You do realize that this thread is in a section called "SERIOUS Discussions", don't you?
Or am I just missing something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCabret

You do realize that this thread is in a section called "SERIOUS Discussions", don't you?
Or am I just missing something?

---

Mmm, yes, you're just missing something:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

How about deterrents for crimes committed with guns. We could bring back public executions and mutilations. We could dust off the old rack, the wheel, and maybe even the iron maiden. I know there's a cat-o-nine tails around here somewhere. That might help. Perhaps we could just remove all the trigger-fingers of all the convicted felons in all the prisons here. Now where's my meat clever?

Mmm, wait, uhh ... this thread is in the serious-discussion area.

Sorry.

---

The last part.

But if I might digress into seriousness for a moment, it does seems to me there is a fundamental difference between the death penalty where somebody is strapped to a gurney and and given a lethal injection and an execution where somebody is strapped to a rack in a public square and stretched until his spine cracks and his innards spill out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kemijost

Hand guns are a no no. If they come in, I leave. It's understood. That's always been my small start.

I wouldn't care if I get shot. I have a partial death wish, anyway. But kids live here. They have all taken the hunter safety course. and friends don't have access to the cabinet where the rifles are. and the kids are much more concerned with blogging for human rights and playing Mario cart on the Wii.

---

That's a good start.
Also,

What is a well regulated militia?
Does licencing/registering guns infringe a person's right to bear arms?

For me to own a shotgun, I had to have referees of unblemished reputation and a police interview and inspection to get a licence. It took about three months (for background checks) and then the same process has to be gone through every 5 years. The conditions of the licence are strict too. It sounds difficult, but its no problem really.

I suppose these are infringements to having a gun, but we Brits don't have a "right" to them anyway.

It would, perhaps, be a step towards a solution if the right to bear arms was limited to the kind of arms which were available at the time the amendment was written.

Awful news this morning from Colorado.

Ideologically driven murderer attacks a soft target, shoots random unarmed people at an abortion clinic, in order to make a statement. Terrorism pure and simple.

the initial shooting(s) took place outside a planned parenthood in an area where other businesses exist. he ended up inside the planned parenthood when responders appeared.

there is absolutely no evidence at this point the shooter was "ideologically driven" or was "making a statement."

and to that last point, if he wanted to make a statement, he wouldn't be killing "random people." he'd be either killing the people who ran the clinic, or the protestors out in front of it.

Ok, the incedent has been reported differently over here. we'll just call it murder for now.

theres reporting like that here too.

i think its pretty easy sometimes when there are such strong feelings involved to jump to easy conclusions. this one's got the double whammy of guns and abortion, so maybe all the more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bounty

theres reporting like that here too.

i think its pretty easy sometimes when there are such strong feelings involved to jump to easy conclusions. this one's got the double whammy of guns and abortion, so maybe all the more so.

---

The attack began inside the PP clinic when the terrorist burst in and began shooting people. This fact has been widely reported and corroborated by police sources. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...enthood-216230 https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/...-springs/1892/ http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article46899985.html

If this isn't terrorism, then I don't know what terrorism is.

The terrorist was quoted as saying "no more baby parts" after he attacked the Planned Parenthood clinic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ft-three-dead/

its possible he did say that about "no more baby parts"---but i'll be more inclined to believe it when I see a transcript of him saying so, an affidavit, or at least a corroborated and recognizable source as opposed to "unidentified law enforcement sources."

This is a direct quote from the ny times article:

“Just minutes earlier, on Friday morning around 11:30, a gunman had gone to the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood center here and unleashed a barrage of bullets, turning a bustling snow-covered shopping center into a tableau of chaos and fear that lasted for more than five hours.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us...-shooting.html

according to that then, he did not walk into a planned parenthood and start shooting people. if we are to believe the ny times, the shooting, as I said in my first post, began in the parking lot.

I don't know what the truth is, but im inclined to believe the parking lot based on the fact that there aren't 20 or 30 dead people, especially doctors, nurses and administrators INSIDE the planned parenthood.

and lydgate, sorry---"conservative politicians spreading lies?" the law allows for pp to sell body parts. pp sells body parts. medical research companies buy body parts from pp. my goodness you might as well say calling the sky blue is a lie.

"assault weapon" aside for a moment (I don't know what he had as I write this), the same, or more damage could have been done with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. want to ban those too?

The language of hatred, begets hatred.

I can't get the the links over here, but this quote was reported on Twitter from the NYT allegedly. - "He was a gentle man who occasionally abused the women he knew".???


Anyway, back to normality (sort of) have any GOP candidates said anything about it yet? Twitter was full of people supporting the shooter.

I love green skies.

A company on the other side of the river from home , StemExpress https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&client=opera&q="stemExp who was allegedly buying FBP, has cut all ties with Planned Parenthood after bad press and local picketing. They were mentioned in the undercover exposés. Coincidence ?

They are evidently in litigation according to one source http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/14/s...borted-babies/

Quote:

---

“StemExpress, a for-profit company partnered with over 30 abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, to harvest and sell aborted baby parts and provide a “financial benefit” to Planned Parenthood clinics, is attempting to use meritless litigation to cover-up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public,” CMP said in a statement.

---

re: "GOP candidates said anything about it yet?" - Yeah. I believe Trump/Carson/Bush have repudiated the senseless act while maintaining their stances on Planned Parenthood.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

"Baby parts", that's the same emotive phrase the shooter used, is that where he got it from I wonder?. Others call it Foetal tissue, it only goes to show what's in a name.

Quote:

---

Firstly, the fact a company cuts ties with an organization doesn't prove the organization participated in a specific activity.

---

Litigation is prolly public record. Perhaps I'll accept your challenge and become pro-active; follow the money, etc. to whatever end. We have a saying in my neck of the woods though: "Where there's smoke there's probably fire". Nixon: "I'm not a crook"... Clinton: "I did not have sex with that girl." Just need to have the will to dig deeper.

I chose my source from the google search near the top of results; perhaps I can find a result that shares no bias (yeah, that'll work). I welcome any help in this endeavor.

btb - I do so love green skies.

Addendum: re: "a legitimate news source": This made me laugh.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

Quote:

---

What is clear with this shooting--and murders an bombing of abortion clinics--is we have a serious domestic terrorist problem with anti-abortion extremists.

---

... A bit over-the-top here. Your focus is too narrow and lends itself to declaring an extremist agenda in and of its own, in my humble estimation.

Mental health policies, homelessness, under-privileged/disadvantaged/disaffected peoples, degradation of the family, treating life as if it doesn't matter, elitism, bullying, ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum - contribute to those who incline to atrocities. Sane people don't kill people (personal/familial defense perhaps excepted in extreme cases).

My agenda: Peace, love, and respect for all life.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

A bad one in california this morning.

In most countries, if you disagree with something, or have an argument at work, you can't go home pick up your assult rifle and start shooting people. You just have to get over it.

Neither terrorism nor disgruntled employee rampage ruled out yet. CNN coverage hitting all angles non-stop. Adding home-made bombs and tactical gear to the mix skew my thoughts to terrorism; though CNN likened this combination to Columbine-like retribution. Maybe it's both ? Insanity none the less.

:tailor

Since I started this thread I've read thousands of words from hundreds of pundits on the issue of gun control and mass killings. The most thoughtful and intelligent articles come out of America (for and against).

This is probably the best one I have read.
http://theweek.com/articles/446582/t...eform-gun-laws

"There is no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform its gun laws." by Tim Kreider.

Shootings will continue unabated in this country for the forseeable future. This is unfortunate.

I have resigned my self to the inevitable rise of American-style fascism, which promotes a popular culture of violence and death, along with denegration of women (and women's rights), LBGT people (and LBGT rights), minorities (and the rights of minorities), immigrants (and the rights of immigrants), and political dissidents (and the right to challenge the status quo). Read the comments sections on the Washington Post or on almost any popular news organization's facebook pages and you will see that violent vitriol is extremely common and seems to be generally accepted. The 'Cult of Political Incorrectness' bolts into action whenever the common pedagogy is challenged or even the suggestion of reform is hinted at. If you even mention the possibilty of common sense gun control measures, or any sort of reform which aims to prevent violence from occuring in the first, you are shot down with a variety of scripted and thus oft-repeated responses.

The second amendment will remain and the violence will continue.....

Good link, Mick. I especially liked the part where he agreed with my earlier theory that - guns are for cowards.

That said, considering all the blood being spilt over here, and being a cowardly man myself, I may have to start packing heat, just so's I can return fire if need be.

Joking of course. I've become totally convinced that the human species is, by its very nature, way too emotionally driven to be trusted with firearms. (I'm thinking we're probably not well equipped to drive a car either.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

Good link, Mick. I especially liked the part where he agreed with my earlier theory that - guns are for cowards.

That said, considering all the blood being spilt over here, and being a cowardly man myself, I may have to start packing heat, just so's I can return fire if need be.

Joking of course. I've become totally convinced that the human species is, by its very nature, way too emotionally driven to be trusted with firearms. (I'm thinking we're probably not well equipped to drive a car either.)

---

And there it is, Sancho's cracked it. There is the problem.


By the way, can we have your President when you've finished with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

"There is no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform its gun laws." by Tim Kreider.

---

Given Texas' reintroduction of open carry, there's no doubt on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

I've become totally convinced that the human species is, by its very nature, way too emotionally driven to be trusted with firearms. (I'm thinking we're probably not well equipped to drive a car either.)

---

:iagree:

http://www.ibtimes.com/accidental-gu...lem-us-2250568

And yet firearms will always be in the hands of people, whether they're the police, the national army or criminals who will acquire them. Why are these types of people the only ones fit to carry firearms? Have governments demonstrated proper use of military force in the recent past? Have the police demonstrated that they are most of the time overwhelmingly more able to use firearms responsibly than the general public?

The second amendment exists to prevent government tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCabret

Shootings will continue unabated in this country for the forseeable future. This is unfortunate.

I have resigned my self to the inevitable rise of American-style fascism, which promotes a popular culture of violence and death, along with denegration of women (and women's rights), LBGT people (and LBGT rights), minorities (and the rights of minorities), immigrants (and the rights of immigrants), and political dissidents (and the right to challenge the status quo). Read the comments sections on the Washington Post or on almost any popular news organization's facebook pages and you will see that violent vitriol is extremely common and seems to be generally accepted. The 'Cult of Political Incorrectness' bolts into action whenever the common pedagogy is challenged or even the suggestion of reform is hinted at. If you even mention the possibilty of common sense gun control measures, or any sort of reform which aims to prevent violence from occuring in the first, you are shot down with a variety of scripted and thus oft-repeated responses.

The second amendment will remain and the violence will continue.....

---

What a joke.