Topic: Today's shooting - The Sandy Hook Memorial Thread - Thoughts and Prayers

[Redman0151]

Playing devil's advocate (I'm against gun ownership): The right to bear arms against a corrupt government/military/monarchy/etc is one argument they give.  Citizens could arm themselves and form a militia.  If the queen/king, as head of the armed forces here in the U.K., turned on the public, they would argue: how would we defend ourselves? 

But that's the paranoid, delusional mindset that permeates American society. Everybody is out to get them, the only thing stopping the government from enslaving them is the brave American spirit of freedom.

The government has drone strikes, fighter jets, tanks, advanced surveillance, highly trained soldiers and SEALs. Some redneck holding a couple pistols hasn't got a chance.

I'd rather know my children are safe going to school or a cinema or a mall than massage some nutjobs paranoia about the government wanting to kill everybody. It only plays into the insular, paranoid mindset and falls apart when you realise nearly every other western country doesn't have guns, and the people are living free (and safer) than Americans.


The best way to protect your country from a dangerous, totalitarian government if not to elect one in the first place. Although they've just elected Donald Drumpf and the Republicans so what do I know

[Party Phil]

Playing devil's advocate (I'm against gun ownership): The right to bear arms against a corrupt government/military/monarchy/etc is one argument they give.  Citizens could arm themselves and form a militia.  If the queen/king, as head of the armed forces here in the U.K., turned on the public, they would argue: how would we defend ourselves? 

Since their head of state and government are supposedly democratically elected, that means that there is an inherent distrust of the electoral system (or the electorate). So logic says that if you reform the electoral system to remove the risk of having a government that you need to defend yourself against you no longer need a well regulated militia and a right to bear arms. 2 birds, 1 stone.

Spoiler

I know that logic and reason is the antichrist to these people, just making a point

[close]

[SP]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2017/01/05/person-found-shot-to-death-near-ohio-state-campus.html#

[Alan_X]

Playing devil's advocate (I'm against gun ownership): The right to bear arms against a corrupt government/military/monarchy/etc is one argument they give.  Citizens could arm themselves and form a militia.  If the queen/king, as head of the armed forces here in the U.K., turned on the public, they would argue: how would we defend ourselves? 

What a 'well-armed-militia' has:



What the US Government has:

[Party Phil]

Just to be pedantic, the US government does not have Dassault Rafa less but I get the point.

[zebenzui]

I thought all American military personnel were heroic champions of liberty and the American people anyway. Now they're meant to be Obama's personal instruments of oppression?

[Alan_X]

Just to be pedantic, the US government does not have Dassault Rafa less but I get the point.

I know - nice picture though.

[Party Phil]

I thought all American military personnel were heroic champions of liberty and the American people anyway. Now they're meant to be Obama's personal instruments of oppression?

Yep. Of course the irony is that from next Friday it'll be left leaning liberals and minorities that are paranoid that the government is out to get them.

[Chakan]

Just to be pedantic, the US government does not have Dassault Rafa less but I get the point.

No Rafa? Fuck America.

[GreatEx]

I thought all American military personnel were heroic champions of liberty and the American people anyway. Now they're meant to be Obama's personal instruments of oppression?

Give it a couple of weeks, I sense heroism is about to make a comeback.

[Party Phil]

No Rafa? Fuck America.

FUCK AUTOCORRECT

[marko35s]

Playing devil's advocate (I'm against gun ownership): The right to bear arms against a corrupt government/military/monarchy/etc is one argument they give.  Citizens could arm themselves and form a militia.  If the queen/king, as head of the armed forces here in the U.K., turned on the public, they would argue: how would we defend ourselves? 

Seriously?
Yep all those handguns and semi-auto's will stop the United States supply of tanks, fighter planes and warships in their tracks. Hand them a damn good thrashing before lunch...
That excuse stopped being valid around the time muskets went out of fashion.

[Chakan]

Prepare for a few more, least when they say the person had mental health issues, they can rest easy knowing they allowed them to get a gun.

[Zeb]

I suspect the bulk of deaths as a result will be those with mental health problems themselves.

eg

Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness

However, in the present day, the actions of lone White male shooters lead to calls to expand gun rights, focus on individual brains, or limit gun rights just for the severely mentally ill. Indeed it would seem political suicide for a legislator or doctor to hint at restricting the gun rights for White Americans, private citizens, or men, even though these groups are frequently linked to high-profile mass shootings. Meanwhile, members of political groups such as the Tea Party who advocate broadening gun rights to guard against government tyranny—indeed the same claims made by Black Panther leaders in the 1960s—take seats in the US Congress rather than being subjected to psychiatric surveillance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

[Chakan]

Not enough actual massacres out there, now we're making ones up.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/conway-bowling-green/

[stoopid yank]

Here is a great idea! What could go wrong?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/fans-with-guns-arkansas-football-players-are-concerned/ar-BBz1BqE?ocid=spartandhp

Heal yeah Americuh  Dem terrorists best not go to Arkansas games.

[TepidT2O]

Another massacre at a school


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39560646?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

[Alan_X]

Another massacre at a school


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39560646?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Not a massacre as far as we know thankfully. Murder/suicide being reported with a teacher and two students in hospital. No more details. Watching a local news feed:

http://abc7.com/live/

Two adults reported dead in a class room.

[KiNki]

fake news
just a ploy to take your guns away
it was mexican muslims
give every 'make american great again' a six shooter with lead bullets.

[Alan_X]

Two adults dead - no children:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39560646

[12C]

Was watching "Portillo on a train show" last night and he visited the NRA hq in Colorado. He had a hard time understanding his guide. Some little toad of a middle aged man, who went on about the potential 'threat' to his family and how he was prepared to defend them. I call him a toad as he was short slimy and round and carried a large cowboy gun in a holster as if in a John Wayne wet dream.
He went out to the range, and the toad fired his six gun at the targets (missing all but one) but went on to claim that if "that was a bad guy it wouldn't matter he would be dead"
Portillo gently suggested that the risk of children dying outweighs the potential for defence, and the soft get actually said there was no law possible to stop school shootings.
The gun lobby will happily continue to make money from the bullets it sells that kill children. I read yesterday that 141 children died last year in gun incidents.
Sad

[Conocinico]

I do kind of understand the idea of gun ownership as a freedom, where it's a refusal of subordination to the state. Even though it is effectively symbolic in nature, it must empower the individual and alter their understanding of their relationship to their government.

[classycarra]

I do kind of understand the idea of gun ownership as a freedom, where it's a refusal of subordination to the state. Even though it is effectively symbolic in nature, it must empower the individual and alter their understanding of their relationship to their government.

Fear is a powerful motivator.

[Haemoglobin]

The gun is the great leveller.

And when everyone has guns, then the bazooka is the great leveller.

[mazlo123]

Two adults dead - no children:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39560646

I think that link has been updated Alan. "San Bernardino shooting: Boy, 8, and two adults dead at California primary school".

"The suspect shot and killed his estranged wife, a teacher, and wounded two children who were behind her, one of whom died of his wounds."

[Redman0151]

Man at NRA headquarters accidentally shoots himself

https://www.indy100.com/article/accidentally-shoots-himself-nra-headquarters-fairfax-7675461

[Alan_X]

I do kind of understand the idea of gun ownership as a freedom, where it's a refusal of subordination to the state. Even though it is effectively symbolic in nature, it must empower the individual and alter their understanding of their relationship to their government.

So it's a potentially lethal but essentially meaningless comfort blanket?

It's not a refusal of subordination if your ownership is sanctioned by the state backed by massive corporate lobbying and bribes by gun manufacturers... and they have the firepower to take it from you at any time.

Billions of dollars paid to huge corporations to buy hundreds of millions of largely redundant and useless weapons - and they feel empowered?

[Redman0151]

I do kind of understand the idea of gun ownership as a freedom, where it's a refusal of subordination to the state. Even though it is effectively symbolic in nature, it must empower the individual and alter their understanding of their relationship to their government.

What about freedom to own bazookas, tanks, land mines?

[Conocinico]

It's not a refusal of subordination if your ownership is sanctioned by the state backed by massive corporate lobbying and bribes by gun manufacturers... and they have the firepower to take it from you at any time.

I think most Americans hold the second amendment to be an individual right rather than the state right interpretation. I don't care either way really, I was just speculating how I might feel.

[Conocinico]

What about freedom to own bazookas, tanks, land mines?

I don't think Madison and his buddies believed the militias of their time should have a right to own warships, so there's obviously a line to be drawn somewhere.

[Brissyred]

I do kind of understand the idea of gun ownership as a freedom, where it's a refusal of subordination to the state. Even though it is effectively symbolic in nature, it must empower the individual and alter their understanding of their relationship to their government.

Americans think freedom is the right to bear arms, my idea of freedom is not to have to.

[Redman0151]

I don't think Madison and his buddies believed the militias of their time should have a right to own warships, so there's obviously a line to be drawn somewhere.

Nor did they predict the current state of America or advancements in weapons, which renders the entire thing moot

[Alan_X]

Nor did they predict the current state of America or advancements in weapons, which renders the entire thing moot

Exactly - it's obvious what the 2nd Amendment was meant for and it's also obvious that it is now meaningless. It's now used to justify gun ownership for wankers who get a hard on blasting away with their assault rifles and hand guns. Weapons that can slaughter fellow civilians but will be useless if or when an American tyrant chooses to fuck them all over.

And let's face it, it's far more likely that the kind of wankers who lurve they guns will be on the side of the brown shirts if a right wing fascist President decides to exceed his authority.

[12C]

What about freedom to own bazookas, tanks, land mines?

A while back I was flicking through the channels on tv and came across a show where this guy out in the West (Wyoming?) customised weapons for obviously rich clients.
What stunned me was the range of weaponry he was dealing with -all legal
He reactivated a WW2 mortar for one rich old guy, and mounted a pair of MG42 machine guns on a HELICOPTER!!!! for another.
I have caught it a couple of times since and it gets weirder. One guy had them customise a pump action shotgun ready for the zombie apocalypse, something which shows how twisted society is over there.
Firstly the guy believes in the zombie  fantasy that much that he is willing to blow a large wad of cash to have a custom made weapon.
Secondly someone that stupid has a large wedge of cash to piss away on a shotgun (penis substitute?)
Thirdly, the lack of any mental health requirement for owning massive firepower

I understand that some people still hunt for food and live in some pretty dangerous parts of the wilderness and so rifles are important to them, but a 100 round magazine M16 as a personal weapon when shopping in the mall? Or a .50cal mounted on your pickup?
Madness

[Conocinico]

It's now used to justify gun ownership for wankers who get a hard on blasting away with their assault rifles and hand guns. Weapons that can slaughter fellow civilians but will be useless if or when an American tyrant chooses to fuck them all over.

I'm not so sure that's true. Even if only 5% of the population took up arms, that's a 15-million-strong force fighting asymmetrically to deal with. What with army defectors and the constraints of a government fighting its own populace, I doubt any tyrant would last.

Not that there's much chance of this happening any time soon.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

it's obvious what the 2nd Amendment was meant for and it's also obvious that it is now

Sadly a majority of them would disagree.

What the 2nd amendment states:

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

But does it guarantee the right to carry arms in public domain? Like universities, schools and libraries? I think not. But knobheads who defend the 2nd amendment to their death will disagree.

So whats the solution? Make the penalties stricter. Have a gun? No problem. Misuse it? Be prepared to be in jail for a long long time.

[12C]

I would guess Obama would have settled for something along the lines of...
"Because you are suffering from on-going mental health issues, have an IQ of -70, and are incapable of coherent speech, you cannot have a gun"

Was only 2015 or last year, the Governor of Texas, (yes the Governor!) made a statement based upon an internet rumour that the Federal Government was massing troops at Fort Bragg ready to move in and take away "their guns". The absolute lunacy of such a senior politician saying he believed this report was compounded by his threats to oppose it with the state troopers. What was worse was the media and others whipping up the idea that Texas could secede as a response
Turned out it was summer manoeuvre time in what is, I think, one of, if not the largest, military bases in the US.
And who can remember the Tea Party Darling from Alaska, Sarah Palin, shouting "the British are coming to take our guns"
Crazy!
So long as the gun industry supports the campaigns of so many politicians at all levels, then they are going to continue to have the power to brainwash the majority of people for the need for 'protection' against the very weapons that their 'rights' guarantee.

[Redman0151]

I'm not so sure that's true. Even if only 5% of the population took up arms, that's a 15-million-strong force fighting asymmetrically to deal with. What with army defectors and the constraints of a government fighting its own populace, I doubt any tyrant would last.

Not that there's much chance of this happening any time soon.

And how would they fare against drone strikes and air strikes?

The paranoia in american society that the only thing stopping them from being enslaved by an evil dictator is their guns is incredibly strange. I'm not sure where it stems from

[12C]

And how would they fare against drone strikes and air strikes?

The paranoia in american society that the only thing stopping them from being enslaved by an evil dictator is their guns is incredibly strange. I'm not sure where it stems from

The arms companies do a lot of it via the NRA. I suppose the vastness of the country makes Washington so remote anyway, add in the myths about states rights, plus an education system that is less than perfect (teaching creationism?) and you have the perfect mix for suspicion and paranoia to develop.

"States Rights" is one line that is always pushed. And yet that always seems to be code for a local dictatorship doing what the fuck it wants in the face of Federal Law.

Slavery and the Civil Rights campaigns have always come up against this. Alabama refusing to integrate schools in the 60's is the perfect example, and yet many states in the South have until recently (if at all) refused to allow text books in schools, if they referred to civil war other than as a fight for 'states rights' and 'freedom' - the freedom to have slaves that is.
We are seeing this today in the way voters are being denied the vote, by local laws designed to keep power in the hands of the predominantly white GOP incumbents.
There was an article on here the other day from the Rolling Stone where the writer was saying how civil rights legislation was now being undermined by 'states rights', legislation that was used to try and stop the Klan lynch-mobs getting away with murder is now being countered by the 'states rights' argument which says the states should have the say, not Washington.

[Redman0151]

The arms companies do a lot of it via the NRA. I suppose the vastness of the country makes Washington so remote anyway, add in the myths about states rights, plus an education system that is less than perfect (teaching creationism?) and you have the perfect mix for suspicion and paranoia to develop.

"States Rights" is one line that is always pushed. And yet that always seems to be code for a local dictatorship doing what the fuck it wants in the face of Federal Law.

Slavery and the Civil Rights campaigns have always come up against this. Alabama refusing to integrate schools in the 60's is the perfect example, and yet many states in the South have until recently (if at all) refused to allow text books in schools, if they referred to civil war other than as a fight for 'states rights' and 'freedom' - the freedom to have slaves that is.
We are seeing this today in the way voters are being denied the vote, by local laws designed to keep power in the hands of the predominantly white GOP incumbents.
There was an article on here the other day from the Rolling Stone where the writer was saying how civil rights legislation was now being undermined by 'states rights', legislation that was used to try and stop the Klan lynch-mobs getting away with murder is now being countered by the 'states rights' argument which says the states should have the say, not Washington.

That's an interesting post, I had no idea about that stuff