Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Freedom to [email protected] it up....

Old 15th Dec 2012, 23:51
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
I find it mildly disturbing that there are people who post here that display the same sort of delusions as Huberty.... and they appear always to be gun toting republican types...but that's neither here nor there....what remains though is the easy access these nutters have...and will continue to have.....
Your point is well stated. Perhaps there are no nuts in the USA who are not Republicans? That would certainly point to a variety of possible solutions.

Contra is that the press and broadcast media in the USA are overwhelmingly liberal and left-leaning --- probably because that sells more soap and papers, and because the ownership is concentrated and very clubby, and all the politicians with any power to help or hinder now seem to be on the left.

It may be a serious strategic mistake to take the headlines as gospel for anything real. They are riven with agendas and opinions of folks who are bought quite eagerly.
arcniz is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2012, 23:53
  #182 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 80
Posts: 4,696
Two more today. Just can't believe it.


I also can't believe a woman teacher having that arsenal.

I can't believe one of my S-I-Ls buying a cannon. She's a retired high achiever who worked for a big corporation. She lives in a friendly neighborhood of houses with 20 metre spacing, but hell, if anyone breaks in, they're history. With nine-ball loads, so would be the walls.

I used to love shooting pistol, but after the first tragedy in the UK I sold many of my guns and shipped the rest here to Texas. I've recently had my neighbor keep them in his safe. Just tired of the mayhem, I guess.
Loose rivets is online now  
Old 15th Dec 2012, 23:56
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 112
Galaxy Flyer,

Surely gun ownership is allowed by the constitution specifically in the context of maintaining a militia to balance government power. If that is the case, I'm afraid the point where the populace could threaten the government through such force is long gone, existing only as a concept and a fantasy, no matter how freely available firearms are. Any desire to curb government power is better practices through other means.

If the right to bear arms is to be justified on the grounds of personal freedom, as some have argued, then the proverbial "right to shout fire in a theatre" comes to mind. I see no reason why the right to gun ownership should be privileged over so many other rights which are happily stamped on by the state - the right to walk down the street naked, to inject/sell drugs, to euthanasia and so forth. It seems a strange right to cling on to and somewhat at odds with the way state and society tend to interact in the US.

Perhaps an important point in all this has been missed. These massacres are often actually suicides, where the suicidal seemingly chooses to take out as many people as they can with them. Asking why, how and decrying the horror somewhat misses the point in these cases, as does the argument that cars and knives also kill. A bitter and twisted individual, wanting to go out with a bang, has few better tools at his or her disposal than firearms. If, as a nation, you wish to have these weapons available then you must accept your children and relatives have a massively increased risk of being killed by them.

That is of course America's choice to make. It just looks a little insane.
Sunray Minor is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 00:07
  #184 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
But your side of the debate is refusing to acknowledge that the "...mentality behind the person that uses the above..." CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED.
One percent wrong. It was controlled somehow until 1966. There were no mass shooting in the United States in nearly 200 years until 1966. Even after 1966 there was not another one until 1986 then not again until 1991.

So, what is your answer to that?

What has changed???????????

Not guns for one. Nor availability of or access to guns either.

I also just love people who are not from the US trying to tell us just what our Constitution and Bill of Rights really mean.

Last edited by con-pilot; 16th Dec 2012 at 00:12.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 00:18
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
That is of course America's choice to make. It just looks a little insane.
Pretty much the Brit view of the place since the Colonies went sour, eh?

====


One deplores the recent events and sincerely grieves for those harmed. This event should not be minimised.

On the other hand, the USA is a BIG place, with some 330 million people on the records and another 30 million or so uninvited visitors who think of themselves as residents.

The US also has possibly the most proactive and reactive news reporting processes and pipelines of any society in the world.

So, without diminishing the present circumstances, one would point out that this phenomenon is a very isolated, special, horrible exception to what is normal.

One would hazard to guess that similar events occur nearly every day in nearly every nation of size on the planet, but most are quietly left unreported.

It was not so long ago that the people of Germany set out, methodically and deliberately over a dozen years, to murder some 20 million people - for profit. One reason the US is rather gun-oriented now is that the nation had to put aside its quiet business and train millions of young men to shoot straight, so they could travel to Europe to sort out the political failures of the Continent and rescue many millions, including a large batch of Brits, from the very orderly unpleasantness that would have been the EU done 3R-style.

Last edited by arcniz; 16th Dec 2012 at 00:40.
arcniz is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 00:29
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Global Vagabond
Posts: 623
Guys, the cousins like their guns, its their ball so let them have it.

They'll deal with it in their own way.

Condolences to the no doubt distraught families in CN.
mini is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 00:29
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
Sunray Minor

You might review the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions which decided that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to own guns and that the 14th Amendment applies the Second Amendment to states. So, yes, individuals have a constitutionally guaranteed right.

BTW, the State didn't give us these rights, they are "endowed by our Creator" as a certain Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it. You might have read of him, IF the Crown taught the recent unpleasantries in the American colonies.

GF

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 16th Dec 2012 at 00:34.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 00:55
  #188 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 80
Posts: 4,696
con, and mini the point has to be that these children would have been tomorrow's Americans. They had no say in the constitution's deep meanings. They were unaware of the concepts of freedom, of the importance of men being men. For a brief instant of time they could only interpret the image of fear on their teacher's faces. It's something children do very well. Then it was the end of their chance to be Americans.

This is a minute world. Everyone on its surface is looking at human development and their warrior shackles whether they know it or not. Rage, indignation, sense of injustice, is part of every human's psyche and it's deeply embedded. But in the modern world, the gun gives that person the means to reach out and strike down an opponent with a God-like advantage. Even this might be justifiable in a purely evolutionary existence. However, we as evolving humans have passed that point years ago. Now, grievous loss is suffered by the innocent when the tools of righteousness are used by immature and confused minds. The young man in question might well be judged to be without guilt, because his mind was without commensurate maturity or even in a physically malformed brain. The issue has to come back to him having access to the weapons.

Some of the keen gun owners, in their passion to avoid control, seem to be missing a fundamental point. They would be the ones with the license. They would become the local controlling force. But no, they are too involved in protesting their rights. And so it will go on, and so young Americans will be denied their right. Their collective right to have a life.
Loose rivets is online now  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 01:14
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 815
Con Pilot made an intersting point, about things changing in the 60's

I believe there is a connection between media, social norms and general behavour. Up and to the 60's media, tv, movies, music was folksy and family centric.

The modern age has seen kids bombarded with concepts of killing is cool, gangs are cool, violence is the norm. Its happening here in Australia. In the citys in the 60's, if an argument between 2 blokes deveoloped in a pub, it was taken outside and settled in the carpark with no more than a bloody nose and a cut lip. Now its considered normal to whip out a knife and stick in somones chest, or to break a glass and go for the jugular.

I'm horrified at some of the music my kids listen to, the lyrics are quite disturbing. Its a never ending battle to elimininate that crap in my house.

It seems that social norms are changing, its now accepted to go for the kill even after a minor insult.


As much as these guys in this video look pathetic, walking around like gun slinging cowboys in the wild west......but actually in the supermarket or caffee, they are not realy the problem. Gun violence like yesterday has a deeper root cause.

This event happens when many forces colide in a perfect storm.

Society is bitchy, if you're not HOT, not the sports superstar, or have other indeering qualities, or a are a little nerdy and socially inept, you are very quickly socially marginalised.

The trash press just magnifies this, achievement is not valued, fame is the only tradable commidity in your peoples world. Fame is the end, the only thing that matters. look at any bookstore or supermarket. Thousands of magazines, air time on TV are devoted to the 'celebrity". celbrity and notoriety is the ba all if life for young people.

Adam Lanzas only aim was to achive Celebrity, which he did. From obscurity to infamy in 10 minutes. hw was a nobody, no one noticed him, now, the whole world knows of him. That was his end game.

Now, when you couple this with easy access to powerful firarms, you have a perfoect storm.

His targets were chosen carefully as he knew the reaction that would take place around the world. Until we change the celebrity culture and change the easy access to inapropriate weapons, this will sadly happen again and again, with increasing frequency. Its not IF but WHEN.

Last edited by nomorecatering; 16th Dec 2012 at 01:46.
nomorecatering is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 01:16
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
The young man in question might well be judged to be without guilt, because his mind was without commensurate maturity or even in a physically malformed brain.
Really?

The young man involved was age 20, according to reports. Published picture was taken at age 13, so somewhat misleading - right on the surface of it. He was well past the age of paternalistic control by any authority.

Not a small proportion of the valiant fellows dying in the sky as PIC's and crew doing the Battle of Britain were similar age, or even younger, no? They did the right thing. He did the wrong thing, with bells. Not a matter of age, but sanity and socialization, it would seem.

Misplaced sentiments, yours, maybe?
arcniz is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 01:36
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
Some of the keen gun owners, in their passion to avoid control, seem to be missing a fundamental point. They would be the ones with the license.
Loose Rivets

That's where you are wrong. Our opposition isn't because we want to avoid all controls. I have a permit issued by the state. We are subject to controls which are ignored by the criminals and mentally disturbed. The objection is to ineffective laws, laws that are in place but are not enforced, that silliness. Laws that have and will continue to be found in violation of rights.

GF

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 16th Dec 2012 at 01:37.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 01:42
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 55
Posts: 183
All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

The good men don't want to abrogate their responsibility to their fellows.
421dog is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 02:05
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
The Brits here might want to consult their Blackstone texts, as Federal Judge Posner quoted it striking down Illinois law as unreasonable restrictions of a citizen's rights:

The Supreme Court rejected the argument. The appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analy- sis. That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed self- defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home. The first sentence of the McDonald opinion states that “two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S. Ct. at 3026, and later in the opinion we read that “Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was ‘one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,’ id. at 594.” 130 S. Ct. at 3037. And immedi- ately the Court adds that “Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists.” Id.

And try this on from Judge Posner:

Blackstone described the right of armed self-preservation as a fundamental natural right of Englishmen, on a par with seeking redress in the courts or petitioning the government. 1 Blackstone, supra, at 136, 139–40. The Court in Heller inferred from this that eighteenth-century English law recognized a right to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self- defense, and protection against both public and private violence.


GF

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 16th Dec 2012 at 02:11.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 02:07
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Ethereal Land of Vintage Aviation
Posts: 125
President Obama is scheduled to visit tomorrow, and will be one of the speakers at the community memorial. No mention of the First Lady accompanying him. She did not attend same after the Aurora theatre massacre.

Can't she get her fat azz on AF1 and show some compassion to these people?

Last edited by V2-OMG!; 16th Dec 2012 at 02:07.
V2-OMG! is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 02:18
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 563
V2

What a c you are!

As to guns ban all but muskets as our "founding fathers" intended. If you can not do it in one shot then you are not a man or in V's case a non sw.

The Sultan
The Sultan is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 02:23
  #196 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
What a c you are!


Sultan,

Let go of your pp and it won't bother you so much.
BenThere is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 02:26
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 734
Have you not seen the irony in the fact that these murderous evil men choose to do their public suicides in places that outlaw firearms? They choose to go there because they know that law-abiding citizens will have no power to stop them.
That happens in Aus and the UK and other places too, so why would we not recognise that and perhaps make the environment less friendly to these types of criminal?
In general, those places that have strong gun laws also have more gun crimes and more gun deaths, look at Chicago and Mexico City for examples.
It may be that the normal person would not be able to respond effectlvely against a sudden attack in a public place, but a trained person such as an off-duty policeman or concealed-carry permit holder would certainly have that ability.
It would make me sick to see someone gunned down or assaulted in front of me knowing that I had been forced to leave my gun in my house or car because some liberal with half a brain decided to make the area I needed to be in "gun free".
I fear that these crimes will continue until the criminals and mentally sick individuals who commit them realise that they will be stopped and killed before they can carry out their plan.
Only an armed populace (not every man and his dog, just those trained and permitted, depending on the rules of the State) can stop this type of violence. Removing guns from the law-abiding, which seems to be the plan, only increases the chance of future mass shootings and more deaths.
boofhead is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 02:29
  #198 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Spunky Monkey View Post
I just cannot understand a society where gun ownership is a universal right and healthcare is a privilege.
Maybe one day the rest of the world would reach that level of grateness.
 
Old 16th Dec 2012, 02:33
  #199 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
As to guns ban all but muskets as our "founding fathers" intended. If you can not do it in one shot then you are not a man or in V's case a non sw.
Not only are you rude and insulting, you have a very large gap in history. Muskets my foot.

When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, there was then no restriction on the type of weapon that a citizen of the United States was allowed to arm themselves, up to and including cannons. Ship owning merchantmen had cannons on their ships, all privately owned.

Many private homes, business and other commercial interests had cannons. Thomas Jefferson, as a private citizen, had a cannon to protect his home.

So before you make rude and insulting remarks again, be prepared to be taken to task in the same manner.

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
It doesn't say a bloody thing about muskets, let alone 'only muskets'.

You are a typical brain dead progressive, so-called liberal, trying to prove your point by attempting to change history to match your corrupted views.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2012, 02:36
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 54
Posts: 4,245
nomorecatering

Well, looking pathetic in your eyes maybe but the likelihood
of some perp doing something in the area knowing quite a few
people open carry or have Concealed carry permits is low.
500N is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.