The ugly and dangerous truth

seabeerob213

just throwing up an example of where we're headed

brettw22

Good lord.....Some of you people whose (partial) reasons for having weapons are for the use against the government are the ones that seem a bit off kilter to me. It's so ridiculous sounding to me that there are people who are so freaked out that the gov't is going to in any way hunt you down and take you out........

I could understand the fear in your words if the proposition was that all guns needed to be forfeited, but as us rational persons know, this is not the case. Pissing and moaning because you can't have an unlimited number of weapons/ammo is nothing but pissing and moaning....talk about clinging to guns.....

And no, I'm not anti-gun......I'm just guilty of applying practicality and logic to the overall topic....

seabeerob213

if you were referring to my statements, im not suggesting that we use them in any way against the govt., that being said, should it come down to us having to, we need the ability to the same thing to the table that they do, this is coming fro someone who is currently employed by our government by the way

tonyb

brettw22 wrote: »

And no, I'm not anti-gun......I'm just guilty of applying practicality and logic to the overall topic....

Well, then apply it Brett.....the logic that is. Show me where gun bans reduce crime, show me how limiting someones rights reduces violence. You have yet to offer any solution but banning certain guns as if thats the only solution available. Why keep harping on something that obviously doesn't work ? Logical ?? Hardly....

seabeerob213

tonyb wrote: »

Well, then apply it Brett.....the logic that is. Show me where gun bans reduce crime, show me how limiting someones rights reduces violence. You have yet to offer any solution but banning certain guns as if thats the only solution available. Why keep harping on something that obviously doesn't work ? Logical ?? Hardly....

tell me again how prohibition and drug laws kept/keep substances out of the hands of citizens, oh and how being under 21 ever stopped a bunch of HS kids from having a kegger

Systems

We actually have metal detectors here at our courthouses, with a Sheriff deputy stationed, a-la TSA style.
You go to pay your taxes or assess and you will go through large metal detectors, just like an airport, and then searched with a "wand".

Even the smallest, tiniest pocket knife is not allowed.

Nuts.

Just to get your car tags!:eek:

tonyb

pepster wrote: »

We actually have metal detectors here at our courthouses, with a Sheriff deputy stationed, a-la TSA style.
You go to pay your taxes or assess and you will go through large metal detectors, just like an airport, and then searched with a "wand".

Even the smallest, tiniest pocket knife is not allowed.

Nuts.

Just to get your car tags!:eek:

And who exactly are they protecting and from whom ? You know that answer and all we are saying is it should work both ways.

mrbigbluelight

CNH makes an excellent point about the individual and the state being intertwined.
There is a bond there, almost like that of a co-joined twin (didn't want to say Siamese twin, but that's what I mean).
If one gets sick, so does the other, so it's important to keep both partners well.
Right now, it would seem that both are suffering. Who made who sick first is debatable, but the question is how to make each better.
We could separate each one (secede ?), but there's danger in that operation, and then each one would have to fend for themselves. Each would then have total "freedom", but with that freedom comes enormous burdens, burdens most of us would not be able to bear even with the best and strongest of intentions. We need each other, and that's what makes a strong society.

BTW: CNH, I'd also suggest the movie "Metropolis". After having his eyes opened to things as they really are, the good guy triumphs, the evil powers that be are vanquished, the good guy gets the girl, and all is good.
... may have undertones of communism, so be careful !


Japan only had 11 gun murders, but I wonder if that doesn't have a lot to do with it being a rather homogenous society. A society that has, well, ... manners ? Strong social mores ? A strong individual feeling of belonging to, and having an obligation to, a bigger group ? From what I understand, talking loudly is considered rude, and the person is considered uncouth. Generally avoided to prevent being shunned by the group.
Here ? Different story, I'd say. It's a "ME" mentality.
Japan has twice the suicide rate of the US, if I remember correctly. Doesn't make us "better", it just is. The difference might be, as I've heard it said, that in Japan, if someone has mental issues and gets severely depressed, they do themselves in. Here ? The person takes it out on anyone within reach before doing themselves in.
Why the difference ? As simplistic as it may seem, it might boil down to ... manners/morals. Over there, the group response to a horrible act might be ... revulsion ? Here, the primary group reaction is ... fear ?
Don't know, there's a lot of aspects to that.

Tonyb mentioned wasteful spending and that just touched the tip of the iceberg. Money that could go towards our schools and improving them. I'm not particularly sold on the issue of ramping up school security, though. Short term, it would have an effect, IMO. Long term, no. We have some local school districts that have 70+% dropout rates. Almost ZERO chance of coming out with marketable skills or ability to further one's education. (1/3 of the local community college's classes are REMEDIAL).
Although everyone is responsible for themselves, the vast majority of students from these districts feel almost ZERO connection to a larger group, ie, society. The only groups they connect with are local gangs and the only question they have is, which gang do I connect to to survive.
Used to be the "local gang" they could connect to was called: "the family". Unfortunately, that isn't the case now.
And all the school security in the world won't protect a student who's main connection to society is not from the family or school, but a gang.

Face

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMg0FQS6Fqo&feature=player_embedded

seabeerob213

my new high school a few years ago was a big concrete and steel structure with a hug cafeteria that had i windows floor to ceiling on three sides, where does the heat for that room come from, how is it sustained, a 4-5 million dollar football field that isnt even used for varsity games, and a plethora of other wasteful expenditures, its a school, it doesnt need to be an architectural masterpiece, it needs to be a big box with classrooms, a gym, a cafeteria, a library, offices, and some bathrooms, build it up a little, squarish in shape, take up less land, get more room and a more efficient building, not this billion dollar 7 year late to finish bull that keeps having problems because they couldnt afford to do it right since they chose to do it fancy

seabeerob213

oh and those fancy a$$ 900 dollar desk chairs they had atleast one for each office and classroom

George Grand

seabeerob213 wrote: »

my new high school a few years ago was a big concrete and steel structure with a hug cafeteria that had i windows floor to ceiling on three sides, where does the heat for that room come from, how is it sustained, a 4-5 million dollar football field that isnt even used for varsity games, and a plethora of other wasteful expenditures, its a school, it doesnt need to be an architectural masterpiece, it needs to be a big box with classrooms, a gym, a cafeteria, a library, offices, and some bathrooms, build it up a little, squarish in shape, take up less land, get more room and a more efficient building, not this billion dollar 7 year late to finish bull that keeps having problems because they couldnt afford to do it right since they chose to do it fancy

One helluva sentence.

Strong Bad

George Grand wrote: »

One helluva sentence.

Yep, one word comes to mind...punctuation.

brettw22

tonyb wrote: »

Well, then apply it Brett.....the logic that is. Show me where gun bans reduce crime, show me how limiting someones rights reduces violence. You have yet to offer any solution but banning certain guns as if thats the only solution available. Why keep harping on something that obviously doesn't work ? Logical ?? Hardly....

negative.....you show me where the currently insufficient laws have kept gun violence down.......

The fact is that the approach should be multi-tiered, but you will never hear that from a right wing NRA nut.......for them, 'balance' is their pink unicorn....

Systems

brettw22 wrote: »

negative.....you show me where the currently insufficient laws have kept gun violence down.......

The fact is that the approach should be multi-tiered, but you will never hear that from a right wing NRA nut.......for them, 'balance' is their pink unicorn....

More people are killed in car accidents than gun violence,

My thoughts are that we either start biking or walking.

brettw22

I laugh at the constant switch arguements from you guys........yup, car laws need to be reigned in to curb those gun deaths......**** can't be married because they would want to marry their pets.......blah blah blah.

Tony mentioned the **** rights arguement earlier, and the comparison is ignorant. I cannot get married at all (unless I live in certain states)......which is vastly different than saying that you can have 2 guns instead of 50 (general numbers, not specified by anyone - and only qualified so some don't start freaking out even more). The proper comparison would be if I, or ANYone, were arguing that all guns should be confiscated and the public should have zero......but we're not, whether your reaction is aware of that or not.

obieone

There are plenty of sane, rational gun owners in this country, that do NOT agree with the NRA. I don't like them, for the same reason I don't like NORML, or any OTHER lobbying groups.

brettw22

I understand that obieone......the brush stroke was not all encompassing.....but NRA nuts are the ones that typically have their strings wound so tight on this.....

obieone

brettw22 wrote: »

I understand that obieone......the brush stroke was not all encompassing.....but NRA nuts are the ones that typically have their strings wound so tight on this.....

You're right. BOTH sides of the aisle need to come in off the window ledge, and ratchet down the rhetoric.
The left has created a gun ban, without the need for legislation. How? Try finding anything, anywhere that has anything to do with guns.
One side yells 'GUN BAN!', and the other side stockpiles. The voices of both sides are the ones wearing tin foil hats.

brettw22

But that's my point......no one has said that all guns should/could/would be banned......I think shawn's arguments are good, and anyone that says there is zero room for improvement from the gun industry is out of their mind....

tonyb

Naw Brett, Unicorns,rainbows, fairy tales and Utopia are trade marks of an other group. I'm all for any tiered solution that doesn't limit ones right to own guns, what that is, you decide. For me, a balanced approach would be better background checks even for used guns, and some form of mental test say every 5 years or so to start. School security has a few options as well as keeping the bad guys locked up or deported. Giving police the ability to even ask if one is legal or not could also help. No early releases either. BTW, one North eastern state has practically no gun laws and one of if not the lowest gun crime rate in the nation. So unless you can prove to the rest of the logical thinkers here why banning guns would improve gun crime, please throw it out for discussion. Hate to say it my friend but facts are getting in the way of your reasoning.

I know what CNH,BBL are saying about government and individuals being connected. To a point I agree, which is why both need their might to be balanced to keep that relationship on an even keel. When one side has all the power, all the firepower, that relationship gets rocky, untrustworthy, and confrontational. Kinda like going to a baseball game and only one team has bats. Who then dictates the outcome of that game ?

BBL, yes belonging to a group, a family so to speak as a mentoring vehicle is what I was talking about earlier. Some of the institutions that do this is often under attack. Boy Scouts for one, religous groups is another. Building better people, an expecting more from our elected leaders is key on moving forward. Dare I even bring up the institution of marriage, which has taken a beating over the last decade.

Systems

brettw22 wrote: »

But that's my point......no one has said that all guns should/could/would be banned......I think shawn's arguments are good, and anyone that says there is zero room for improvement from the gun industry is out of their mind....

Certainly from reading your posts, I would never suspect you have the "The" answer to all this.
As opposed to me, who holds the "SAME" status as you, a US CITIZEN!


The ONLY LAW in place I would have an argument with you about are just that, LAW!

You are the one that feels like "THE LAWS SHOULD BE CHANGED".
Change em!
I admire that.
But until they are changed, I would suggest you quit call people "Out or their minds" that are actually following the "LAWS" that are in place right now!

Until they are changed, nothing but hot air, speculation, wants, and simple text on a page.

brettw22

What shawn and I have discussed is the proposal.....it doesn't limit your right to own guns.....it would limit certain types of guns, which is an entirely different thing......

As for marriage, anyone that claims their marriage has been compromised by **** getting the right to marry has a weak marriage if the value of it is contingent on someone else's marriage status.....but that's a whole separate topic.

Systems

Yep, laws suck Brett.
I guess until you change them, you are just going to have to abide by the ones in place.
Just like everyone else.

nooshinjohn

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Want more gun laws? Here's a simple one for you... If you want to own an m60, it's you right, and god bless our founders for recognizing it. Commit a crime with any type of firearm and you get 25 to life in a federal prison. Injure someone and you get life without parole. Kill someone and as soon as the trial is over, so are you. Also, we should never know the names of those that commit mass murders and they should be burried at sea. They should be forgotten by society rather than glorified by 24/7 news coverage.

Will this solve everything... Not at first and not ever, but I think once people saw that there is no immortality for the worst among us and that punishment for gun crime was swift and severe these episodes would decline pretty quickly.

I already covered gun crimes with this post. But to recap, if you commit a crime with a firearm, you lose all rights, freedoms and likely, your life as well, PERIOD.

**** marriage, how this got into the discussion escapes me, but here you go. Marriage is a religious institution that the government uses as a cash cow, and to make sure that the hillbillies stop marrying their mommies and sisters... The government, by the doctrine is separation of church/state, should stop issuing marriage lisences and instead issue civil union documents for everyone. These documents would be all that is legally required to have all the rights, benefits and obligations as a marriage, but would not be recognized as a marriage by most churches. If you still want a marriage, that would be between you, your spouse and your God. Bottom line here is get the government out of my life.

wayne3burk

The US Government should stop mandating Ethanol production, subsidizing it, and creating an artificial worldwide corn shortage....

I'm just saying

-- wayne --

p.s. -- this thread should be closed too

Systems

I already covered gun crimes with this post. But to recap, if you commit a crime with a firearm, you lose all rights, freedoms and likely, your life as well, PERIOD.

It is already like that!
5 years mandatory with a gun involved, depending on the crime, LIFE!
I may be wrong, but once convicted of a felony, all rights are lost, even voting rights.

drselect

brettw22 wrote: »

I laugh at the constant switch arguements from you guys........yup, car laws need to be reigned in to curb those gun deaths......**** can't be married because they would want to marry their pets.......blah blah blah.

Tony mentioned the **** rights arguement earlier, and the comparison is ignorant. I cannot get married at all (unless I live in certain states)......which is vastly different than saying that you can have 2 guns instead of 50 (general numbers, not specified by anyone - and only qualified so some don't start freaking out even more). The proper comparison would be if I, or ANYone, were arguing that all guns should be confiscated and the public should have zero......but we're not, whether your reaction is aware of that or not.

brett for clarification are you saying that you should not compare someone being killed in a car or by a car to someone being killed buy a gun?

seabeerob213

on a happy note, and something that shows some proactivity with government controlling guns, my guncards expire in a few weeks and i get to go re-quall on the 9 mil and the 12 gauge, it is required to be re-qualified annually in order to carry a firearm in our armed services, and those in charge of the few ranges i have been to have been nothing but professional when someone has a gun in their hands, and we are required to learn with de-militarized weapons how to properly use and maintain a firearm, as well as respect it,

im hoping i can improve over my previous score

shawn474

brgman wrote: »

Well it had been a productive, mature dialogue; now it seems rather than be a productive contributor you would rather use immature emoticons to express your viewpoint.