Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

On that point, we can certainly agree.

[GreatUrduPoet]

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Yeah, thanks for the usual quote that I see consistently from the reactionary right - a real testament to the lack of independent thought amongst your ranks. Again, like I said in the post that you quoted entirely without addressing, the United States is not a third world country, nor are they currently in a colonial relationship. To use the situation of India in the early 20th century to make a comparable case for the US now is a textbook definition of ignorance. And even if that's what Gandhi felt, he nevertheless illustrated very clearly how colonial power can be overthrown without guns and therefore your initial point before you shifted the goalposts that "No guns = No Republic" is flat out false.

You're such a one-trick (collectivist) pony. I've yet to see you present an independent thought on this forum that I haven't been hearing for decades from other 'bourgeois-privileged' Marxist layabouts. Don't feel too safe...the academics are always among the most expendable "elites" in a socialist revolution.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Yeah, thanks for the usual quote that I see consistently from the reactionary right - a real testament to the lack of independent thought amongst your ranks. Again, like I said in the post that you quoted entirely without addressing, the United States is not a third world country, nor are they currently in a colonial relationship. To use the situation of India in the early 20th century to make a comparable case for the US now is a textbook definition of ignorance. And even if that's what Gandhi felt, he nevertheless illustrated very clearly how colonial power can be overthrown without guns and therefore your initial point before you shifted the goalposts that "No guns = No Republic" is flat out false.

You're such a one-trick (collectivist) pony. I've yet to see you present an independent thought on this forum that I haven't been hearing for decades from other 'bourgeois-privileged' Marxist layabouts. Don't feel too safe...the academics are always among the most expendable "elites" in a socialist revolution.

Since you have yet again neglected to engage with the substance of my post, I'm afraid I am unable to take this conversation further.

[GreatUrduPoet]

What's impossible? And a moron with a gun is supposed to be logical? Tell this to my friend Pat who got into an argument with a friend at a BBQ (held in honor of him enlisting in the Marines) and this friend went in the house and came back, held a gun to Pat's head before it was taken away from him by a "responsible gun owner" .... Oh, but the gun went off as he was showing off how to safely unload it and hit
Pat in the leg severing an artery. He was dead before he made it to the hospital.

You are a f***ing idiot.

The rest of us shouldn't be asked to forfeit freedom just because you have stupid, irresponsible friends.

[GreatUrduPoet]

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Yeah, thanks for the usual quote that I see consistently from the reactionary right - a real testament to the lack of independent thought amongst your ranks. Again, like I said in the post that you quoted entirely without addressing, the United States is not a third world country, nor are they currently in a colonial relationship. To use the situation of India in the early 20th century to make a comparable case for the US now is a textbook definition of ignorance. And even if that's what Gandhi felt, he nevertheless illustrated very clearly how colonial power can be overthrown without guns and therefore your initial point before you shifted the goalposts that "No guns = No Republic" is flat out false.

You're such a one-trick (collectivist) pony. I've yet to see you present an independent thought on this forum that I haven't been hearing for decades from other 'bourgeois-privileged' Marxist layabouts. Don't feel too safe...the academics are always among the most expendable "elites" in a socialist revolution.

Since you have yet again neglected to engage with the substance of my post, I'm afraid I am unable to take this conversation further.

Typical Commie dodge. Adios, coward.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

What am I dodging exactly? You were the one who neglected to engage with any of my points. There was nothing to dodge. Your third last response was simply a quotation from someone else, and your second last response was just a couple of insults. I'm simply not willing to talk to someone who is throwing a hissy fit. When I do the same with my two year old daughter, it's not a dodge, I'm simply illustrating to her that throwing a tantrum is not going to lead to productive results.

[Bean Bag]

On that point, we can certainly agree.

Ha ha!  you called me an idiot, so you agree with an idiot!  
You must forgive me... after being called "a moron" and a "lumox with a keyboard" (that was a good one! ) I always like to exercise the license I've been granted.

So with that... here's some more moron thinking...

Raise taxes on guns.  I just solved the issue.  Like cigarettes, if we crank up the taxes, morons will be less able to afford them.  It's "natural selection?"  Har-har.  Pip-pip.  We all know morons are stupid and stupid hicks don't make a lot of money.  We also need more gun free zones, too.  Take away certain guns.... assault weapons.  And let's limit the number of bullets.  How about just 7?


....how'd I do, Pinder?  This moron-thinking is pretty tough -- I'm exhausted!  I'll leave it to the pros...

NY Has Tentative Deal on Gun Control: AP
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Magazines-Limit-Cuomo-NY-186794151.html
Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders have a tentative deal to enact the nation's first gun control measure following the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.  The tentative agreement would further restrict New York's ban on assault weapons and limit the size of magazines to seven bullets, rather than the current 10.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

we're all morons on occasion. I am certainly not letting myself off the hook...

There really is no solution here.... people will do bad things and continue to do bad things no matter what laws we pass... I mean, how long has murder been illegal???

We're just talking and talking. Fair enough. On this topic, however, I can't help but relate it somehow to watching one of my very best friends die from being shot on accident by a reckless asshole who was trying to do the right thing when an even more restless asshole was waving a gun around.... For all you message board basement lurkers: this is called personal experience.... It's a bitch... You should try it...

I'm not anti gun at all, I just can't stomach hypocritical right wingers dismissing any/all opinions contrary to their rabid own as "liberals" this and that... I understand the predisposition to laziness of thought and action, but c'mon, life is shaded.... I also laugh when these right wing gun felaters are so scared and angry at the Government, but when you try and suggest shaving a single dollar off the military or defense and God forbid, HELP SOMEONE: they get their gun barrels all in knots.... So, you are all for over-funding the very same implements of death and destruction that you hope (yes, let's be honest) you'll have to do battle against sooner than later?

Idiots.

I'm not talking about any of you guys here, mind you, but these folks certainly do exist.

[Bean Bag]

Right wingers aren't the problem, though.  They're not the ones trying to f*ck you over.

Here's my point:  I don't think many people understand tyranny.  How tyrants like to work.  They don't just rule -- they lust for absolute power waved in the face of a cowering, begging woman.  The Statist fantasy is this:  to have every man and woman be at the mercy of the Government.  

Their attempt to de-fang us, humiliate us, and make us all subservient, should not be taken lightly and brushed aside.  They need to be shamed.  Prosecuted.  They took an oath to defend us and the Constitution.  But... not only have they failed, they sat and waited for the perfect opportunity to f*ck us.  While Americans wept at the loss of those innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary -- those animals were preparing legislation.  They're horny for it.

They must not only be defeated -- but ridiculed.  Laughed at.  They know it.  Nobody wanted nationalized medicine.  Nobody wanted them in their homes... their bedrooms... or their doctor's office.  They don't care.  Blame your fellow Americans all you want, call'em ignorant right wingers... but understand who the Statists are.  Understand tyranny.  Tyranny doesn't care.





Do I care?  No... no...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I dislike tyranny more than I simply dislike Obama.... In four more years we'll likely have a Republucan in there who's every move you can applaud..... Single issue thinkers interest me little.... Goodbye.

[SMiLE Brian]

Beanbag, the funny thing about these debates and this board is that I actually agree with a lot of your BBs opinions.

[Bean Bag]

I dislike tyranny more than I simply dislike Obama.... In four more years we'll likely have a Republucan in there who's every move you can applaud..... Single issue thinkers interest me little.... Goodbye.

I don't know what you mean by "single issue thinkers."  I'm a conservative -- the opposite of tyranny.  I think we're in an age of soft tyranny.  A slowly rising dirty water.  Each day, I ask "was the water this high yesterday?"  If you think that's "one issue" you're not connecting the dots.

[Bean Bag]

Beanbag, the funny thing about these debates and this board is that I actually agree with a lot of your BBs opinions.

Thanks man!

[Bean Bag]

...just heard that Obama/Biden will be delivering their totally illegal 2nd Amendment usurpation - aka:  "executive orders" on guns with... children.  Gross.

Yes, that means they will be using props.  Children.


Taking over health care...

[Jason]

Nothing like exploiting a tragedy for political gain. The United States government commits a Sandy Hook daily and no one cares, or they don't care because of that bastard in the White House who can apparently do no wrong.

[rab2591]

Alcohol should have a worldwide ban placed on it as well. It's a legal drug that people obviously can't handle responsibly.

Alcohol kills more people in America than guns each year (appx 8,000 murders due to guns vs 12,000 deaths due to drunk driving in 2011 - also, some 350,000 were injured in drunk driving accidents in 2011). It's time Obama stepped up that fight - if it's numbers we're talking about...If it's human lives we're talking about. The modern culture REVOLVES around this LEGAL drug (Half the commercials for football games are for beer, most people can't wait to go out and drink on Friday evening). It has impacted countless innocent lives. People die tragically, car accidents to domestic abuse, from its influences. I know many people who drive drunk on a regular basis. I had my life flash before me because a drunk didn't see his red light while I was crossing an intersection. A good friend of mine back from school died just last year because she was out driving while intoxicated...she had an entire life ahead of her, thrown away because she was brought up in a culture that revolves around this drug.

If we're talking human lives, then ban alcohol along with guns. THIS coming from a person who drinks nearly every day. But it's not about numbers of lives. Gun control/eradication is total bullshit if we're talking numbers.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Well put, but what is Obama supposed to do when you're talking about huge corporations which subsist on government subsidies? ..... Who would this supposed ban affect? Micro-breweries only? .... How many of them are left which are not owned by Anheuser-Bush? And are they just going to roll over?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Beanbag, the funny thing about these debates and this board is that I actually agree with a lot of your BBs opinions.

Thanks man!

+ 1

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I dislike tyranny more than I simply dislike Obama.... In four more years we'll likely have a Republucan in there who's every move you can applaud..... Single issue thinkers interest me little.... Goodbye.

I don't know what you mean by "single issue thinkers."  I'm a conservative -- the opposite of tyranny.  I think we're in an age of soft tyranny.  A slowly rising dirty water.  Each day, I ask "was the water this high yesterday?"  If you think that's "one issue" you're not connecting the dots.

All I'm saying is it's not a simple "right" "left" situation no matter how intense your hatred for Obama is..... I say this same thing to folks who yelled and screamed about GWB all day but who then went to sleep with a smile the minute Obama got in there.... But I get it, you hate the guy..... I'll leave it alone.

[rab2591]

Well put, but what is Obama supposed to do when you're talking about huge corporations which subsist on government subsidies? ..... Who would this supposed ban affect? Micro-breweries only? .... How many of them are left which are not owned by Anheuser-Bush? And are they just going to roll over?

I was being facetious. I think banning alcohol is ridiculous as much as I think banning guns is ridiculous. My point was more: If you're going to bitch about a real killer - go after the biggest killer in the room - not the one that is sociably acceptable to go after. But these liberal gun advocates won't do that (hell, a lot of them drink and thus support the alcohol industry! Many people on this board who detest guns are probably drinking at this moment) because it's not about the biggest killer in the room.

I accept the risks of alcohol (and accept living in a society that glorifies it) much like I accept the risks of guns. Yes, one day I'll be walking out of the bar, flagging a cab, when someone mugs me and I get shot (or I'll make it to the cab without incident, and get plowed into by a drunk): I'll eat my words. But until then, carpe diem. You can't put a safety lock on every little thing in life: otherwise, what would be our purpose in living?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Damn straight.....

It would be lovely if your words could close this thread out once and for all....

[Bean Bag]

All I'm saying is it's not a simple "right" "left" situation no matter how intense your hatred for Obama is..... I say this same thing to folks who yelled and screamed about GWB all day but who then went to sleep with a smile the minute Obama got in there.... But I get it, you hate the guy..... I'll leave it alone.

Correct! Not a left/right issue.  7 bullets per clip is safer than 10... I mean, c'mon!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hating Obama is a diversion... my bad.  Not the issue.

[Bean Bag]

Beanbag, the funny thing about these debates and this board is that I actually agree with a lot of your BBs opinions.

Thanks man!

+ 1

Right on!

[Bean Bag]

Do not focus on me.  I just want your weapons.

[Bean Bag]

Is anybody offended that Democrats never stir up this level of attention when 10 kids get shot -- probably daily -- in places like Chicago?  I think I would be awfully offended if it were my neighborhood.  

I understand there's numbness to routine and utter shock when something so unexpected and awful happens, but this is supreme.  In this day n' age?  I mean, if criticizing Obama is "racist!!!" -- this would be genocide.  At best, is this not a classic case of selective outrage?  Is it just because Democrats are typically in charge (for decades on end) of the inner cities and don't want to shine a light on it?  Maybe.  Or is it something more dark?

Let's be honest.  Democrats have enjoyed, perhaps more than any institution in history, consistent unwavering support from its cities.  Look at the election map.  Do you guys think something like this may cause many of the "bus 'em in" lever-pullers on the left to wake up and think about their votes going forward?  Or are they too caught up in the media swirl?  What do you guys think?