The ugly and dangerous truth

txcoastal1

The housing crisis was started at the end of the Clinton administration when he pressured to sign by congress to lighten Freddie/Freddie guide lines for home loans. The guide lines included giving non-conventional ARM loans that people could not pay back at the end of term as a "balloon note" kinda like a no interest for on items like furniture for 5 years then you get stuck paying all compounded interest at the end of the free term doubling the value of loan.

As a society of "trying to keep up with the Jones'" this was an epic failure causing what seamed to be the best economy ever that was an illusion.

Through lobbying which is how the politicians go in fat and come out rich "both parties included" is the demise of our debt.

Until we stop the spending of frivolous tax dollars that we don't have, we will continue digging a hole of no return.

tonyb

Good points gents, and most who have 2 brain cells rubbing together to create a spark know this. But we can debate all this 'till we are old and grey.....crap, I'm already there.:biggrin: When it comes time for solutions, how to turn this sinking ship around, most don't want to hear the answers.....especially politicians. First and foremost in my opinion is that the people need to re-capture the education system so that it's sole purpose is to work for the benefit of the child. Spending as a nation/state, has to be practically cut in half which means alot of welfare programs will have to go away. Policies to promote growth and expansion, not penalize, for small buisness and some fair trade agreements would go along way in helping the economy. It's nice to be idealistic, everyone dreams of their own utopia, but we live in the real world of here and now. If we can't sustain ourselves without borrowing, then the end game is already written on the wall. We have had it so good for so long, most can't even fathom the thought of anything less, much less disastrous. Our whole society and well being is built around debt, you have to change this starting at the education level. Most all the good signs you see today from a financial standpoint, is an illusion. A perception that everything is OK. I'm not sure if this is just incompetence on a grand scale, or being done on purpose. Either way, it's only prudent one prepares as best they can.

sucks2beme

txcoastal1 wrote: »

The housing crisis was started at the end of the Clinton administration when he pressured to sign by congress to lighten Freddie/Freddie guide lines for home loans. The guide lines included giving non-conventional ARM loans that people could not pay back at the end of term as a "balloon note" kinda like a no interest for on items like furniture for 5 years then you get stuck paying all compounded interest at the end of the free term doubling the value of loan.

As a society of "trying to keep up with the Jones'" this was an epic failure causing what seamed to be the best economy ever that was an illusion.

Through lobbying which is how the politicians go in fat and come out rich "both parties included" is the demise of our debt.

Until we stop the spending of frivolous tax dollars that we don't have, we will continue digging a hole of no return.

The housing crisis really started when Countrywide found out how much money could be made
by sub-prime loans. In an attempt to keep the economy afloat, GWB lowered interest rates.
This caused many to look for better returns elsewhere. Countrywide took these high risk loans and
sold them. They were lumped together and given good ratings by people bribed to look the other way.
Investors got what they though were high return low risk investments. Other banks jumped on
the bandwagon. Pretty soon it was a big cash cow. No loan was too risky, since as soon as the ink
was dry, it was gone. And a lot of people who shouldn't of been buying houses got loans.
So, Clinton got the ball rolling, GWB's interest rates and deregulation morphed it into a monster.
I always like that Clinton reference. No, it was a group effort, and both parties got a big time
payout. So, why didn't the guys giving out the ratings NOT go to jail?

cnh

sucks2beme wrote: »

The housing crisis really started when Countrywide found out how much money could be made
by sub-prime loans. In an attempt to keep the economy afloat, GWB lowered interest rates.
This caused many to look for better returns elsewhere. Countrywide took these high risk loans and
sold them. They were lumped together and given good ratings by people bribed to look the other way.
Investors got what they though were high return low risk investments. Other banks jumped on
the bandwagon. Pretty soon it was a big cash cow. No loan was too risky, since as soon as the ink
was dry, it was gone. And a lot of people who shouldn't of been buying houses got loans.
So, Clinton got the ball rolling, GWB's interest rates and deregulation morphed it into a monster.
I always like that Clinton reference. No, it was a group effort, and both parties got a big time
payout. So, why didn't the guys giving out the ratings NOT go to jail?

Absolutely a GROUP project. No lawmaker TOLD banks and the investment boys to HERALD the age of Derivatives! Then take the "crappiest" loans (highest risk which should not have been made) and sell them to others till NO ONE knew who owned the loan anymore! One or even two people can't accomplish that. And the Wall Street boys and girls did NOT say let's not sell and resell these (BTW, "derivatives are still being fashioned, traded, and they're probably a part of your 401K, etc.)? You just can't pull party politics ON THIS ONE. Unless you wish to excuse ONE side and BLAME the OTHER!

As to our American Values going down the tubes. PROVE IT! Whose "values" are we talking about? I certainly grew up in a time where blacks could not ride the bus or eat in the same part of the restaurant, drink from the same fountains. Where women were still half-citizens. Where "certain" values were American, and others were?

I am NOT a fan of Knee-jerk PC behavior. But to say that some of the political reforms that were rooted in the '60s have NOT made things more EQUAL in this country is crazy talk. Just what TIME in history should we return to. Pray Tell!

Think a little before painting an entire era in one color. The diversity of opinion and belief in any period is what moves America forward not some static upper middle class white privileged ideology that "everyone" needs to adapt to and accept or leave the country? What do you think cost the GOP the last election? The "real" debate among "real" conservatives these days is HOW DO WE CAST A "BIG" ENOUGH tent so as to address the changing "demographics" in this country. In my field, we "accept" that as the starting point, not a "crisis"?

cnh

tonyb

Cnh, buddy, I love ya man, you know that....but thats kinda slipping into the extreme take on things. Everyone likes diversity, legal immigration, etc....but not pandering to segments of the population, not creating class warfare or inciting people to rise up and use violence. Also the public discourse needs to get toned down, too many trying to make a point by threats. We are all citizens, regardless of race/color/creed, and should all be treated equally. Some don't see it like that however.

Nobody professes to return in time, hogwash. You do need to keep some basic morals as you move from generation to generation. I think we can agree on that. They don't need to be morals of religous beliefs either, just plain basic common sense behavior. For instance, you don't cheat/steal/rob/kill/threaten those of other beliefs/ discriminate/ be charitable/ helpful to others/ and so on. There are no momments in time associated with that.

The wall street thing.....yeah, both sides had a hand in it thats for sure. One side wanted to give the illusion of being helpful to the lower and middle classes while both sides took advantage of the money to be made. Lets face it, when it comes to money, no morality exists and I don't care which side of the isle you sit. Here's the ticket though, none of this has changed.....matter of fact it has gotten worse. It's just a shuffle game from one segment to another. Now I ask you, is it a good idea to have too much power in a centralized government ? Or is it better to leave the majority of that power to the states ? State levels are easier to control by the people, federal level....not so much. If you like the federal level with x amount of power, then you get what they are willing to give you, don't complain in other words. IMHO...the majority of the complaints aimed at the federal level are all about the freebies handed out, which again, divides people and keeps them in a state of dependancy. Once you single out segments by race, you have divided the citizenry for political gain. Certainly that can't be appealing to an educated man such as yourself. One such example would be affirmative action policies.....forcing people to have a certain mix of races. We already have discrimination laws, thats one thing, but to say you have to have x amount of this race or that race, or even gender, is of itself discriminatory, is it not ?

Regardless my good man, you and I both know we can't continue on the same course of PC and fiscal policy, and to do nothing about either only means you agree with the writting on the wall.

Btw- I always enjoy our banter, some day we need to hook up for some brews and chat. Have a feeling neither one of us would leave sober either.

cnh

tonyb wrote: »

Cnh, buddy, I love ya man, you know that....but thats kinda slipping into the extreme take on things. Everyone likes diversity, legal immigration, etc....but not pandering to segments of the population, not creating class warfare or inciting people to rise up and use violence. Also the public discourse needs to get toned down, too many trying to make a point by threats. We are all citizens, regardless of race/color/creed, and should all be treated equally. Some don't see it like that however.

I love ya too, tony. And yeah, I'm going hyperbolic on you, mostly for effect. Equality is something that plays out historically, it is won, because there are always those who have power and those who do not (at least that was true last time I checked, lol). I don't like the use of class warfare as a negative term, mostly because I grew up as a member of the working class in a multi-ethnic neighborhood, where I experienced the privileged nature of our upper classes as I moved through school, as a capable student at an elite liberal arts school, as a grad student at top 10 metropolitan University, and now, as a teacher at a top 25 L.A. college. I watch my private school kids (the ones with that top notch education which is NOT always so top notch, get into conflicts with the "help", minority students, and trash some of their "best" professors who are "least" like them)? They get unbelievably defensive and even antagonistic when my colleagues in sociology start to list statistical information about the 1 percent (many of them are from this stratum). Actual experience with race, gender, ethnicity, and class tell me that our colleges and universities have radical contradictions within them and that those conflicts often erupt and show the "cracks" in our society. Telling people to forget about those variables is a "good" thing, but thinking they don't exist is refusing to see what is in front of ones eyes, my eyes. We have at least one or two anti-Semitic, anti ****, anti-African American episodes every year, every year. And our elite white students are often the perpetrators? Their politics: conservative and privileged!

Nobody professes to return in time, hogwash. You do need to keep some basic morals as you move from generation to generation. I think we can agree on that. They don't need to be morals of religous beliefs either, just plain basic common sense behavior. For instance, you don't cheat/steal/rob/kill/threaten those of other beliefs/ discriminate/ be charitable/ helpful to others/ and so on. There are no momments in time associated with that.

The idea of Nostalgia, the longing for an imagined past which may have never been. The good old days, some golden age, etc. A large number of people see America in this way. There were "better" times and now there are "dark" times, where people have to take back their country, etc. I'm not sure "what" we're taking back? You are actually in the minority of the "sensible" and the "rational" in saying this is hogwash. But both this site, politics and the media are all awash with "nostalgia".

The wall street thing.....yeah, both sides had a hand in it thats for sure. One side wanted to give the illusion of being helpful to the lower and middle classes while both sides took advantage of the money to be made. Lets face it, when it comes to money, no morality exists and I don't care which side of the isle you sit. Here's the ticket though, none of this has changed.....matter of fact it has gotten worse. It's just a shuffle game from one segment to another. Now I ask you, is it a good idea to have too much power in a centralized government ? Or is it better to leave the majority of that power to the states ? State levels are easier to control by the people, federal level....not so much. If you like the federal level with x amount of power, then you get what they are willing to give you, don't complain in other words. IMHO...the majority of the complaints aimed at the federal level are all about the freebies handed out, which again, divides people and keeps them in a state of dependancy. Once you single out segments by race, you have divided the citizenry for political gain. Certainly that can't be appealing to an educated man such as yourself. One such example would be affirmative action policies.....forcing people to have a certain mix of races. We already have discrimination laws, thats one thing, but to say you have to have x amount of this race or that race, or even gender, is of itself discriminatory, is it not ?

In another 100 years or so you probably wont be able to distinguish the races we consider distinct these days. In fact, we're there already in many ways. Intermarriage between different groups has been the 'norm' throughout human history. And all that variation we have in African American populations has a long long and not so nice "history"! Then we had the Chinese Exclusion Acts, threw Native Americans on reservations and had a BIA policy to assimilate them into the white population slowly so as to eliminate the Indian problem (a colleague has written extensive histories on this). And what keeps people in an endless state of dependency is a LACK of ECONOMIC and EDUCATIONAL opportunities--it is NOT merely the fault of the population.

Regardless my good man, you and I both know we can't continue on the same course of PC and fiscal policy, and to do nothing about either only means you agree with the writting on the wall.

My problem with PC is NOT that my radical colleagues "embrace" it but that they can't think outside it when we need to. I'm not against the ideas in principle, but in "practice" a rigid interpretation of such ideas becomes indefensible, ludicrous and, worst of all, "humorless". And I, for one, cannot suffer a world without "humor". If you can't laugh at yourself, at least sometime, you're a lost cause!

Btw- I always enjoy our banter, some day we need to hook up for some brews and chat. Have a feeling neither one of us would leave sober either.

Banter, babble, it's all good and I enjoy yours as well because you put some "thought" into it. And that's all I ever ask of someone. As an educator, I am NOT trying to clone myself! lol

I have relatives in the windy city ('burbs). Usually get out once a year, we should get together and then write a joint letter to congress providing a few bipartisan suggestions!

Hey man, have a Great New Year! Let's hope this fiscal cliff thing doesn't hang over us "forever"!

cnh

tonyb

I think you and I are pretty good examples of being able to have a discussion with different opinions and not sink to mud slinging or other such nonsense. Thats why I enjoy our banter. I partialy agree with you on some of your thoughts but want to point out one and expand on it. You say that what keeps people in a state of dependency is...lack of education and economic opportunities. Ok then, lets start with economics. Are the policies being brought forth today pro growth ? Are they making it any easier for small buisnesses to grow or expand ? I don't think so, buisness owners don't think so. So a change of course is needed then ? No ? I would think so given we had 4 years now with no real impact. Also, some have become accustomed to their dependency and have no desire to be weened off of it. Thats a problem wouldn't you agree ? We call that the welfare state, which the bigger it gets the more drag on the economy it becomes. Yes ? Yet we have people who promote the welfare state, encourage food stamps and other ways to beat the system and get their free goodies. This is a bad thing, wouldn't you agree ?

Lets then take education too since this is your field.....and lets also combine the word "opportunity". I'm going to assume you mean higher education for the sake of arguement here. First lets reason this, is higher learning discriminatory ? Don't think so, but when forced to make enrollment choices based on race, then yes it is. Covering it under the cloak of diversity won't hold water. So yes, some may not have their first choice of higher learning based on discrimination, but there are plenty of other institutions available to meet anyones needs. Opportunity....now thats a tricky word, and in the words of the great Inigo Montoya...." I don't think that word means what you think it means," I might agree. Opportunity suggests a hand up, not a hand out. What it doesn't mean is free education. What it doesn't mean is everyone gets a trophy. What it does mean is that higher learning is there for all who want it regardless of race, which it is. Sure, not all can afford an Ivy league school, but other more affordable colleges exist. Even then, they are costly and some will have to work their way through college and even the parents may need second jobs. Now, if the idea is to make it more affordable, then you'll need to look at why tuition costs what it does and offer up solutions to cut those costs, not spread them out in the way of higher taxes which hurts the very people you want to help. You have to ask yourself if your willing to make those hard choices of cutting costs, most are not or will not. Heck, we can't even get our own government to balance a checkbook, why on earth would we expect anyone else to ? True too is the fact that school is not for everyone. You don't need higher education to make it today if you have other skills to support yourself. Some are just not cut out for higher learning. Also, there's an underlying factor in economic and educational opportunities.....and that is, you have to want it and be willing to work for it. It's not automatically given because some have more than others. It's not an entittlement. I see far too much discourse and finger pointing at the haves becouse they are the reason the have nots don't have anything. That too isn't even educational based. More so a work ethic problem in my view. I know far too many men and women with absolutely no higher education who took a chance, took a risk, put their whole lives in hock for the opportunity to own their own buisness and bet on themselves. Some made it, some not. But they both tried and worked their butts off for that opportunity. I don't see that willingness today my friend. I also don't mean to paint whole generations with a broad brush either, I know there are exceptions to this. But when the discourse turns to the 1% of haves as the reason the 99% aren't doing so hot, that paints a telling picture.

Fiscal cliff ?? My friend, you and I both know that can will get kicked down the road without any real solutions. You'll get an illusion of one thats for sure. Same song and dance, decade after decade, your students will be having the same discusions too as they get out in the real world. Assuming of course we haven't completely buried ourselves by then.:cheesygrin:

BTW, shoot me a PM when you'll be in town, love to hook up with ya for a brew and chew the fat. Promiss we'll talk about more pleasant stuff too.

nooshinjohn

@ cnh and tony.... Sheesh guys enough of the public bromance and get a room already!:cheesygrin:

DarqueKnight

F1nut wrote: »

Ted Nugent penned this response to the Sandy Hook shooting in the Washington Times and hit the nail squarely on the head!!!

I think the real ugly and dangerous truth is that this country's history has always had a heaping dose of violence.

pepster wrote: »

=What most people do not consider, this violence goes on in EVERY country and always has!
If anything it has gotten better in modern times.
History will show MUCH more violence.

Absolutely, there is always this knee jerk reaction whenever a violent tragedy occurs, but really, how do people think the west was won? With diplomacy?

F1nut wrote: »

Let's get back the the original subject matter, the lack of a moral compass causing the downfall of a once great nation.

amulford wrote: »

Our morals as a society are deplorable.

tonyb wrote: »

Problem is, when the majority of people ask why society has sunk to this level, or why morals have sunk so low, they never really want to deal with the answers.

I think overall, morals in this country are higher than at any point in our history. The difference is that people in different eras of our nation's history had different moral failings. I'm sure people in the 1800's would be shocked at the moral failings of 21st century America. On the other hand, I think a lot of 21st century Americans are shocked and appalled at many of the violent and immoral practices that were accepted in the 1800's.

If you had to bet, what percentage of 1800's Americans would choose to live in 2012 and what percentage of contemporary Americans would go back to the 1800's...even it they could take all their modern conveniences with them?

dscheer

So True DarqueKnight. I think we hear more of what is going on (Re-Violence) with the instantanious news media. During my Grammer school days (1950s) We only heard about a few things here & there. But alot of bad stuff was going on that we just never heard or saw on TV/Radio. Not to sound like a religious nut case, but I think we need to focus on family and God. Just my thoughts. Oh! and enjoy listening to music and Loving our Audio Gear.
Regards: DScheer

tonyb

Thats very true, information travels at light speed these days so you hear more of the negatives of society on a daily basis. The information highway is also used to incite people too, create false anger to meet an agenda. Nature of the beast I guess.

Dk, you might be confusing morals with violence and/or conveinence. Violence is part of mankind from day one and will be to our end. You'll never get rid of it but you can limit it as best we can. Personally I don't think anyone is shocked or appalled at 1800's life, too little know anything about it first off, and even less could tell you about our history from 10 years ago let alone 150. I would more so suggest we have become more used to violence, numb to it, as we are exposed to it more and more by way of TV, movies, news, internet.

I always cherish good debate among adults who can without the trash talk. We may or may not agree or change anyone's opinions on certain subjects, but at least we can offer up each other some food for thought.

tonyb

txcoastal1 wrote: »

The housing crisis was started at the end of the Clinton administration when he pressured to sign by congress to lighten Freddie/Freddie guide lines for home loans. The guide lines included giving non-conventional ARM loans that people could not pay back at the end of term as a "balloon note" kinda like a no interest for on items like furniture for 5 years then you get stuck paying all compounded interest at the end of the free term doubling the value of loan.

As a society of "trying to keep up with the Jones'" this was an epic failure causing what seamed to be the best economy ever that was an illusion.

Through lobbying which is how the politicians go in fat and come out rich "both parties included" is the demise of our debt.

Until we stop the spending of frivolous tax dollars that we don't have, we will continue digging a hole of no return.

Also very true my good man. I knew soo many who went and took out loans, refinanced at 130% of value of their home, not to start a buisness but to acquire material objects. Range Rovers, boats, lavish vacations. Everyone wants to live like a Kardashian, until the bill hits the mailbox. In turn, this was a false economy driven by consumer spending on borrowed money. Much the same today only consumer spending is down, as is the economy. More jobs means more spending, which in turn makes the wheels of the economic machine turn. I just don't see any pro growth/pro buisness policy coming out that would shed any light for future growth. Hence we get stagnation. Like it or not we live in a capitalistic society, and that is based around having the liberty to partake in it. If you want to give up the capitalistic ways, you must then surrender your liberty. If not, then embrace it and promote it, there is little middle ground in this.

Face

tonyb wrote: »

Dk, you might be confusing morals with violence and/or conveinence. Violence is part of mankind from day one and will be to our end. You'll never get rid of it but you can limit it as best we can. Personally I don't think anyone is shocked or appalled at 1800's life, too little know anything about it first off, and even less could tell you about our history from 10 years ago let alone 150. I would more so suggest we have become more used to violence, numb to it, as we are exposed to it more and more by way of TV, movies, news, internet.

If you had a public hanging today, the reaction from the crowd would be very different than the reaction 150 years ago.

Yes, there does appear to be more violence on TV nowadays. But when it comes to real life, over the last 14 years I've noticed a decline. Younger generations are less willing to put their hands on each other due to lawsuits, charges pressed against them, etc...

tonyb

Eh, I dunno about that Face. How many are crying for the return of the death penalty ? There are some who we would all like to see hang, no doubt, but public displays have been poo-pooed along time ago.....to spare the children the gastly sight. Now, we spare them naught, they can hang people, shoot people, cut them up with a knife, in a virtual reality game. Thing is, some have a problem distinguishing virtual reality from the real thing.

For me anyway I haven't noticed any decline in violence because of fear for lawsuits. Check Chicagos record lately ? Doesn't seem to be that fear you speak of in my neck of the woods anyway. Yours may be different, I dunno man. In my opinion, actions have to have consequences. Not bargained consequences either, not 30 years and out in 10 for good behavior. As Beretta used to say, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Apparently, alot can do the time because the time has gotten smaller and smaller, wouldn't you agree ?

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

Dk, you might be confusing morals with violence and/or conveinence.

I assure you that there is no way I could confuse the concepts of morals with violence and/or convenience.

brettw22

The right having a reaction akin to the end of the world because of the conversations around guns? Shocking.......

It's interesting that on the topic of guns, the right only supports a defensive approach to the problem. MAYBE you wouldn't need a gun in a theater or school if it was more difficult for people to get to the weapons in the first place.

Having laws that are going to make it harder for crazies to get their hands on guns is NOT taking away your guns, nor is it voiding the 2nd Amendment. Your failure to cognitively process that correctly is not my issue, so you'll forgive me if I am unsympathetic to the likes of Ted Nugent who reacts to ANY conversation about guns to someone removing his balls.....he's a drama queen, but that's par for the course.....

Personally, I have zero issue with assault style weapons being banned. I have no problems with armor piercing bullets being banned, I have no problems with high capacity clips being banned.....(if you own them now, you own them, but going forward, you can't get more of them). Up the waiting period, make it go through snail mail rather than online/instant, if you need a background check to buy one new, you should absolutely need one to buy one used. The reason for the background check didn't just magically go away because the gun is a few years old.....

IMO, if you have a weapon, and your weapon gets out by you not securing it properly, then you should be prosecuted for it's involvement in a crime. Whether that involves financial or legal liability, so be it......punishment for you being an idiot and being lax enough for the weapons and ammo to be accessed, let alone used in a crime. Your kid get your weapon and it went off and killed them? You go to jail and are blacklisted from ever purchasing a gun again.....too bad......

Targeted regulations are definitely a part of the answer, and if that makes you wet yourself in fear/rage, then you're an idiot.

tonyb

All you had to say Brett was you don't like guns LOL.....your opinion obviously but many would disagree. Speaking for myself, it's not the guns that don't have a place in society, it's the crazy wackjobs that don't have a place. People do crazy things, what tool they use is irrelevant.

Incidently, the right doesn't only support a defensive approach. Your taking assumptions that the gun is in fact the problem and not people. Once you nail down the problem then we can adress solutions. But you already have the problem nailed don't you ?

brettw22

What I have a problem with is people who claim that the problem is 100% a person/body issue. Crazy people aren't going out and getting butterfly knives to take their rage out on people. They're going for what can inflict the most damage in the quickest period of time.

Any rational person would concur that guns do have a part to play in why we have yearly slaughters in this country. Taking the approach that everyone should be armed so that if someone did come into a place where people are and start shooting we could all start shooting back IS defensive. It's taking a standpoint that the solution was not to stop them in the first place. Are there laws that need to be enforced stronger? Yes. Could additional laws be implemented that would make it more difficult for guns to be circulated in general? Yes, and appropriately so IMO.

If Adam Lanza's mother were still alive, I would be all for her being investigated/prosecuted and held responsible for all of the deaths since her son had the ability to get all 3 of her weapons. I have no qualms that if someone claims to be responsible enough to own a weapon, they should be responsible for the consequences when that responsibility has not been taken seriously.

I just think it's ridiculous that the gun industry equates anything in the realm of conversation or new laws to the 2nd amendment going away........that is the biggest crock I've ever heard, yet these people actually have a cold sweat fear that is reality.....i mean, are we really going to claim that people who are afraid of something that is not real are mentally stable? (maybe we should take a few of you people's guns away....ya know, in the vein of 'crazy wackjobs'...)

BlueFox

brettw22 wrote: »

What I have a problem with is people who claim that the problem is 100% a person/body issue. Crazy people aren't going out and getting butterfly knives to take their rage out on people. They're going for what can inflict the most damage in the quickest period of time.

Any rational person would concur that guns do have a part to play in why we have yearly slaughters in this country. Taking the approach that everyone should be armed so that if someone did come into a place where people are and start shooting we could all start shooting back IS defensive. It's taking a standpoint that the solution was not to stop them in the first place. Are there laws that need to be enforced stronger? Yes. Could additional laws be implemented that would make it more difficult for guns to be circulated in general? Yes, and appropriately so IMO.

If Adam Lanza's mother were still alive, I would be all for her being investigated/prosecuted and held responsible for all of the deaths since her son had the ability to get all 3 of her weapons. I have no qualms that if someone claims to be responsible enough to own a weapon, they should be responsible for the consequences when that responsibility has not been taken seriously.

I just think it's ridiculous that the gun industry equates anything in the realm of conversation or new laws to the 2nd amendment going away........that is the biggest crock I've ever heard, yet these people actually have a cold sweat fear that is reality.....i mean, are we really going to claim that people who are afraid of something that is not real are mentally stable? (maybe we should take a few of you people's guns away....ya know, in the vein of 'crazy wackjobs'...)

This is one of the few cogent, reasonable posts in this thread. The rabid fringe who misinterpret the Constitution are doing more damage to this country than any terrorist group could ever hope to accomplish.

Good job Ted. :rolleyes:

tonyb

I can agree that access is/was the responsability of the owner securing his/her firearms. That is a human mistake, not the guns. You really can't legislate common sense however and you can't ban everything that can be used to do harm to others. Incidently Brett, more people were killed by hands and feet than by assualt rifles.....should we ban those too ? Some of you guys think violence will disappear with a ban on guns, but stats say otherwise. Like it or not, the only way to stop violence is with greater violence on the other side. History is proof. Wars are not won by tickling the enemy with a feather until they give up. The side with the most firepower and most people with that firepower usually wins.

Fox, I love ya man, but who exactly is misinterpreting the constitution ? It's pretty clear to me and millions of others. "Shall not be infringed on" doesn't leave too much room for questionable meaning in my book. The "rabid fringe" as you so put it, are the ones who wish to tear apart the constitution to meet their own agenda's. I get that some may not like what it says, may not even agree with most of it, but it is the basis of our country and societal framework. It is the rabid fringe who circumvent the constitution that are a good chunk of this countries ills today. My opinion of course.

As a parent, when my children are born I accept that responsability to protect them from harm in any way I can. Any parent would do the same. For my personal self, I also accept that it is I and I alone responsable for my own personal safety.....again, by any means necessary. Could we not agree to what I just said in the last few sentences ? If so, then moving on can we not conclude that anything that limits my means to protect myself or my children is a bad thing ?

Look, laws that require better background checks, cool, I'm down with it. Laws that may require a test of your mental capacity, down with that too. Laws that limit law abiding citizens from owning guns.....not cool. It makes absolutely no sense when you admit you can't keep guns out of the criminals hands, to then disarm their victims. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that crime would rise....or do you ?

goofyGAguy

A few pertinent questions for you gun-grabbers out there:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336528/questions-gun-controllers-rich-lowry#

Polkersince85

Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called ?assault? rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government ?do something? to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.

The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we?re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.

While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don?t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

Let?s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

Obviously I don?t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens? lives. We shouldn?t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

From the Congressman Ron Paul Website.

Jetmaker737

Polkersince85 wrote: »

From the Congressman Ron Paul Website.

I agreed with virtually all of that. I should have voted for that guy.

pitdogg2

Polkersince85 wrote: »

But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws .

100% truth above

Polkersince85 wrote: »

"While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.".

more truth

Polkersince85 wrote: »

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.."

I don't want to live in East Berlin!!

Polkersince85 wrote: »

Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? ".

No and No
what ever happened to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

cnh

OMG! I feel so "unfree" living in the U.S. lol

Unfortunately, I've spent several years living in an actual communist country so when I see all the to do about "freedoms" here, I just shrug my shoulders and yawn, because I'm bored and see no reason for all the anxiety! Why so "much" fear in the Democratic West, or in the so-called greatest country on earth? Seems like people here are scared of "everything"! And they don't really believe in all their claims about being the foremost nation on earth? At least it makes me doubt a lot of discourse here!

I don't "live" in "fear" that anyone is going to take anything away from "me" that I consider a "right". Maybe I'm living in another country! Last time I looked, though, I was still an "American"?


cnh

Polkersince85

cnh wrote: »

OMG! I feel so "unfree" living in the U.S. lol

Unfortunately, I've spent several years living in an actual communist country so when I see all the to do about "freedoms" here, I just shrug my shoulders and yawn,.....cnh

"Liberalism is creeping incrementalism" to quote Michael Savage.

I do agree with you that China may be more suppressive than we are here and to someone who lived there our issues may seem trivial. The problem lies with the incremental loss of freedoms and the populace being "used" to the invasive nature of their government, just as it may not seem so bad in your opinion. Freedom must be preserved by each generation so that the next will continue to keep your beloved America free.

dkg999

cnh - I think what scares us here in the US is the time-proven, and demonstrated by those countries you reference, concept and correlation that increased government size/control results in less freedoms for the citizens. Does big government have to lessen the freedoms of the citizens, theoretically the answer is no. Unfortunately it's pretty well documented that in reality it does. I do agree that the use of the terms socialism and communism is highly over-used and exaggerrated. Russia was a state-run capitalist economy that never was able to take the leap to socialism or communism that the people's revolution promised. I have the utmost respect for the so-called people's revolution in China, as they came the closest to approaching communism, however that greed thing by the ruling class really did it all in. We should learn from the social and economic experiments in other countries, not fear them.

sucks2beme

I like a good .223 or larger assault style rifle as much as the next guy.
But every time you see one of those crazies on tv or in person, they have
all the good stuff. You know, cults, Neo-****, survivalist, religious extremist, and any
other nut job you can name. And they aren't much fun in person, either. I was standing in
a now out of business gun store about 5 years ago. A guy was shopping for his new
toy, and of course had to have his wife fill out and buy it. He couldn't. I don't know why
(but his general appearance and attitude sure ran up a red flag) and really should of called
someone about it right then and there. And Texas guns shows
are a free for all. Texas has been arming gangs for decades now with the good stuff.
It does me no good to have a Mac 9 ( I don't) if the other guys have 6 of them in a SUV
and are out in traffic and willing to use them at a moment's notice.
I don't have any good ideas on how to stop it. It's out of control.
The Democrats aren't out of line, just out of other ideas as well.
The recent shooting of firemen in Webster NY is just another example.
How do you put the Genie back into the bottle?

tonyb

As a side note, have any of you ever heard the old expression, "the pen is mightier than the sword" ? Well, we've been under attack by the pen for some time now. One side has the power of the pen and the guns. We the people have no such power of the pen thus we must rely on our guns as the only other order of self defense. Just my .02, sure some may not agree.

shawn474

tonyb wrote: »

Well my friend, that is the classic mistake history teaches us now isn't it. Yes, this is the best country, partialy becouse of our constitution to make it that way. So why screw with a good thing ?

Just for the sake of conversation, what has the government done lately to give you such faith ? Not just talking this administration either. Just curious is all, because you say you have faith in the government and the people to not let it decline into an aggresive scenario. Did the people stop government from granting itself powers to spy on you ? Did the people or elected officials stop government from suspending due process for some ? Did the people stand up and stop government from interfering in the private sector.....grabing chunks of industry, or forcing you to buy healthcare ? Nobody stopped them from mandating that you have to hire certain proportions of races and gender. Nobody stopped them from granting illegal citizens the same rights as legal citizens. Anyone stop them yet from printing money willy nilly and devalueing the dollar ? Stop them from nation building on our dime ? Anyone care to stop them from robbing the treasury to give money to their friends ?

Gotta tell ya man, I just don't see it. I don't see where people will stand up and say enough is enough. Do you ? Point me in the right direction if I'm wrong is all I'm saying. I see the private sector shrinking and the public sector growing. I see activist Judges doing their own thing from the bench, I see schools who's curriculum is now being dictated to by government. I see free speech and religion being challenged almost daily. I see the constitution being circumvented by appointed czars. Am I missing something that should restore my faith in the people or it's governing bodies ? I'm not being sarcastic, seriously, point me to something that can restore my faith.

Tony, for the sake of argument lets say i agree (and i do with much of it). But, hiw does owning assault rifles and a mini armory in my home do anything to prevent that? Or are you saying itd really just the principle of it?