This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Only Fury and Sorrow Can Thwart This Bloodbath

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]


Friday, October 06, 2017
By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed

Fury and sorrow are exhausting. They are physically difficult to sustain for any significant length of time because the human body actually fights them. When these emotions cause too much pain, your own central nervous system -- with an assist from the pituitary gland -- deploys endorphins into your bloodstream, and half the word "endorphin" is the word "morphine." It's a natural painkiller that soothes and calms. Remember the times when you've had bad trouble, but suddenly you felt like everything was going to be alright? That was the endorphins talking you down.

Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association make their daily bread on the surety of endorphins. When 20 children are slaughtered in school, when 49 people are massacred in a nightclub, when 58 people are cut down at a concert, LaPierre and the NRA -- along with the politicians who sup on their campaign contributions -- do what they always do: pipe down, lay low and wait.

Fury and sorrow sweep the nation for a time, cries for a change in policy rise to a deafening roar, teddy bears and candles and flowers appear like a snowdrift of tears at the places where the bullets flew … but then the endorphins kick in, everyone moves on, and LaPierre and the NRA go back to the business of selling "freedom" from their castle of bones. Until the next horror, and the next, and the next.

This has been the way of things for far too long, and it needs to end. I propose here no sweeping policy initiatives, no new laws, ordinances or regulations. Doing so would be a perfect waste of time, because many ideas for how to stop this long bloodbath already exist, and a majority of the population already agree that matters must change, though a collective conversation is necessary is to ensure that unintentionally harmful laws are not put in place. In almost every instance, for example, intensified penalties and policing wind up targeting and incarcerating people of color. As a nation, we have seen quite enough of that already.

What must change is our collective approach to achieving those necessary and entirely achievable solutions.

Simply put, we must, all of us, hold on to our fury and our sorrow. We must be rage sustained, inconsolable, implacable, unswerving. We must not let the pain of this long nightmare fade from our sight. Not anymore.

How we have come to find ourselves mired in this appalling situation has everything to do with a company that made farming equipment early in the last century. This company made the best tractors and harvesters that have ever been made, and prospered for a time as every farmer in the country bought one. Then, some years later, the company went under.

See, they made their product too well. Every farmer bought one tractor, and only needed the one because it lasted forever. The company ran out of customers. The lesson was not lost on capitalism, which came up with the concept of "planned obsolescence." Translation: Make it so it breaks. Products today are deliberately manufactured not to last very long in order to stimulate consumerism and sustain the economy -- i.e. people can be paid to make more of them, and people will keep buying them.

Here's the thing: Guns, for the most part, don't break. Even a shoddily manufactured rifle, if properly maintained, will last for generations. This became a problem for the gun manufacturers, one the old tractor company would have recognized immediately. Say everyone in the US buys a gun … then what? The gun they bought will likely last forever. Why would people buy multiple guns? Sooner or later, the gun manufacturers would go out of business for lack of customers, just as that long-ago tractor company did.

The NRA entered the equation when the gun manufacturers needed a new sales angle. A very lucrative solution was settled upon: Make guns about freedom, frighten people, and they will buy them like they buy batteries.

The typical NRA fundraising letter is as frantic as the YOU WILL BURN IN HELL pamphlets handed out by the guy downtown who wears the cardboard sign. Comprised of fetid rants about "those who would like nothing more than to destroy your freedom," the NRA's standard-issue propaganda is towering in its froth, and a segment of the population has bought into it with an evangelical fervor seldom matched in the public square. Why own 50 guns? Why own assault weapons that can kill dozens within minutes? Because freedom and fear, and pay off the politicians to calm the waters.

We're here because the gun manufacturers want to keep making money, and the NRA is their advertising firm. It is not about freedom, or the Constitution, or personal safety. They are trying to turn a buck selling things that don't break, so they wrap them in the flag and spend millions in Washington DC making sure no pesky laws get passed that interfere with the bottom line. That's it. That's all. That's why we're here. It's all a marketing campaign that would make a tobacco executive blush.

There is your fury. Here is your sorrow.

Josh was at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas with his friend Steve, saw Steve get shot, and watched him die. Christopher was a Navy bomb disposal expert who survived Afghanistan but was killed at the concert. Adrian and Brian were at the concert together when a bullet tore through Adrian's neck, and he died in Brian's arms. Sonny put his body over his wife Heather to shield her when the shots rang out, and she felt the bullets that killed him hit his body. Angela was a cheerleader. Sandy was a teacher. Austin and Thomas went to the concert together, and were killed there together. John had six kids, and was dancing at the concert with one of his sons when he was killed. Stacee was helping people escape the gunfire when she was killed. Jack died saving his wife. Erick, a security guard working the concert, died saving others.

For them, and for all the others who were murdered in Las Vegas and Orlando and Sandy Hook and all the other places where life has been senselessly stolen at the barrel of a firearm, hold on to your fury and sorrow.

LaPierre, the NRA and the gun manufacturers who lurk behind them are galactic in their patience. They believe they can wait us out, because that has always worked for them. They will never change, unless we force change upon them. To do so, we must change. No more several-day mourning periods, no more moving on, no more endorphins to wash the next massacre from our minds.

Until we do that, we will do nothing. We will fail to grasp the creative solutions that can end gun violence once and for all. After all this, after so much horror, failure is simply unacceptable.

Learn to seethe.


http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/42176-only-fury-and-sorrow-can-thwart-this-bloodbath

**********

View user profile
There's no credibility when you get all spun up over a tiny percentage of gun violence and ignore the inner city elephant. Laws and bans only work on the lawful.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:There's no credibility when you get all spun up over a tiny percentage of gun violence and ignore the inner city elephant. Laws and bans only work on the lawful.

Read it again. I think you missed the entire point...as usual.

View user profile
Find some propaganda a little more mainstream consumable than Soros and I might.

View user profile

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:Find some propaganda a little more mainstream consumable than Soros and I might.

If you don't even read it, then don't comment, asshole!

As usual, you're shooting your mouth off and have no idea what you're talking about. You're a complete phony and a bullshit artist.

Maybe you should stick to parroting the notorious pedophile Milo Yiannopoulos' noxious opinions, something with which you are apparently well-acquainted.

View user profile
I did read it but it's very unhealthy to seethe about anything. I know we should maintain our anger someplace within us and remember it when it will do some good, but dragging it out and screaming is not going to get things accomplished. The only thing that will accomplish gun control is VOTING.

We can't vote for another year and a month. The answer is to channel the rage into constructive methods and find someone you trust and go to work for them. During my lifetime, from the time I was 18 years old and could not vote, I worked as a volunteer for the campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (in 1974 primary election), for Al Gore, for Wesley Clark, For John Edwards, for John Kerry and for Hillary Clinton. My dad set the tone for me- as I said, when I was 5 years old I went to my first political rally for Eisenhower. I was a delegate to the 2004,( actually December 2003)Democratic State convention down in Orlando. If you want to ease the pain of all that rage, being around others who feel like you is the way to do it. You will believe that with all that enthusiasm, your guy can't lose.

Then you come home and hear people say they won't even bother to VOTE because the PERFECT candidate for them isn't on the ballot. Or the worst lie of all, that there's no difference in the two parties anyway.

If all you do is seethe and rage and stay as angry as you can stay, you will never beat the likes of the NRA They are well financed and they have a strong, vocal base. They WORK for the politicians they support.

All I'm saying is don't get mad and just stay that way, DO SOMETHING YOURSELF. Right now you can give money. Next year you can work. I am so annoyed at all the pissed off Americans now that when you ask them voted for Bernie, or Jill Stein, or just for nobody. Most voted for nobody. Screw them for their inaction. The NRA is NOT to blame, THEY are to blame.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:There's no credibility when you get all spun up over a tiny percentage of gun violence and ignore the inner city elephant. Laws and bans only work on the lawful.

Read it again.  I think you missed the entire point...as usual.

You can't have our guns. Give it a rest. More people die from auto accidents.

Here are some facts:


There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.

View user profile
ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:There's no credibility when you get all spun up over a tiny percentage of gun violence and ignore the inner city elephant. Laws and bans only work on the lawful.

Read it again.  I think you missed the entire point...as usual.

You can't have our guns. Give it a rest. More people die from auto accidents.

Here are some facts:


There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.

What it all comes down to is: who can you really trust? I sure as hell don't trust a white racist, neo-Nazi with owning a semi-auto firearm modified to fire full automatic. Fuck the 2nd amendment, it no longer fits. Owning a simple pistol or rifle is one thing, owning a fully automated rifle is another. Fuck anyone who belongs to a hate group -- Isis, anti-semite, anti-Latino, whatever. And, at the moment, yes, I would trust a standing army more than your miserable right to own a weapon with mass-killing capabilities. Absolutely!!

View user profile
What an individual does that causes no harm to others is none of your fucking business.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
What it all comes down to is:  who can you really trust?  I sure as hell don't trust a white racist, neo-Nazi with owning a semi-auto firearm modified to fire full automatic.  Fuck the 2nd amendment, it no longer fits.  Owning a simple pistol or rifle is one thing, owning a fully automated rifle is another.  Fuck anyone who belongs to a hate group -- Isis, anti-semite, anti-Latino, whatever.  And, at the moment, yes, I would trust a standing army more than your miserable right to own a weapon with mass-killing capabilities.  Absolutely!!

Amen!

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:What an individual does that causes no harm to others is none of your fucking business.


Ok, we get it Pkrbum. You think the right for everyone to own an automatic firing weapon outweighs my right to feel reasonably protected at a public event. Right? Hey asshole -- Japan had one murder by gunfire last year, and has the most restricted gun ownership regime of any modern industrialized country in the world today.

I've owned target and hunting firearms all my adult life, and I still enjoy shooting. My answer would be to make possession of a firearm magazine with a capacity greater than five rounds a federal crime with 10 years imprisonment as the only penalty.

And guess what, when it comes to bump stocks, 63% of republicans agree with the democrats that this object should be banned and made illegal to possess.

Once again, you and your white Christian racist brothers and sisters, insist on your right to murder other Americans you don't like. Fuck you and your team.

View user profile
Automatic weapons and altering to has been illegal for a very long time. The bureaucracy failed.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:  Fuck you and your team.  [/b]

Btw... you are spun up by a sensational fraction of any real discussion on gun violence.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:  Fuck you and your team.  [/b]

Btw... you are spun up by a sensational fraction of any real discussion on gun violence.

Obviously, the gun control regulations we have are not working. Removing all guns from the public does work -- Japan had 1 death from gunfire last year and has the most restrictive gun laws of any modern nation.

Results are what matters, and Japan and Australia show better results than we do in this regard.


My solution to our current problems is to make possession of any firearms magazine with a capacity greater than 5 rounds illegal by federal statute with a 10-yr minimum sentence.

You like to make everything partisan -- so what's your answer to bump-stocks? Tell us how you and your frightened 2nd Amendment friends propose to cut down the mass shootings we've been experiencing. We're all ears. Make no mistake, there are far more citizens who want all guns confiscated than there are those who insist on 2nd amendment rights.

At the moment, 63% of republicans want bump stocks banned. And I imagine the same bunch would okay 5-round magazines.

As a nation, we can no longer afford gun rights that allow nuts to acquire and possess guns that are designed for mass slaughter. Why should we?


View user profile
As I stated above... it's already illegal to alter a gun to automatic fire. The bureaucracy failed.

And again... a mass shooting like this is not statistically significant. The vast majority of gun violence takes place in known areas by felons already forbidden to possess a gun. Why the disconnection from the major driving issue?

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:There's no credibility when you get all spun up over a tiny percentage of gun violence and ignore the inner city elephant. Laws and bans only work on the lawful.

Read it again.  I think you missed the entire point...as usual.

You can't have our guns. Give it a rest. More people die from auto accidents.

Here are some facts:


There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.

What it all comes down to is:  who can you really trust?  I sure as hell don't trust a white racist, neo-Nazi with owning a semi-auto firearm modified to fire full automatic.  Fuck the 2nd amendment, it no longer fits.  Owning a simple pistol or rifle is one thing, owning a fully automated rifle is another.  Fuck anyone who belongs to a hate group -- Isis, anti-semite, anti-Latino, whatever.  And, at the moment, yes, I would trust a standing army more than your miserable right to own a weapon with mass-killing capabilities.  Absolutely!!

Because Peedog gave no link for his "facts", I googled it...led me to Ted Nugent's FB page. Is this your source? Or is this NRA propaganda?

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:There's no credibility when you get all spun up over a tiny percentage of gun violence and ignore the inner city elephant. Laws and bans only work on the lawful.

Read it again.  I think you missed the entire point...as usual.

You can't have our guns. Give it a rest. More people die from auto accidents.

Here are some facts:


There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.

What it all comes down to is:  who can you really trust?  I sure as hell don't trust a white racist, neo-Nazi with owning a semi-auto firearm modified to fire full automatic.  Fuck the 2nd amendment, it no longer fits.  Owning a simple pistol or rifle is one thing, owning a fully automated rifle is another.  Fuck anyone who belongs to a hate group -- Isis, anti-semite, anti-Latino, whatever.  And, at the moment, yes, I would trust a standing army more than your miserable right to own a weapon with mass-killing capabilities.  Absolutely!!

Because Peedog gave no link for his "facts", I googled it...led me to Ted Nugent's FB page.  Is this your source?  Or is this NRA propaganda?

Facts are hard things to ignore unless you are sipping the demonic left wing kool aid. Why should we punish everyone in America who owns guns when most of the massacres were done by leftist/democrats? There will be a civil war before we give up our guns. What you could do though is try to create a 28th amendment that nullifies the 2nd Amendment. Good luck getting 38 states to agree with your lunacy though. It ain't happening. Everywhere we have seen the confiscation of weapons, we have seen genocide- Germany, Russia, China,
Cambodia etc. The Second Amendment is about controlling politicians and those who would abuse power. It's never been more relevant now. Given y'all hate for Trump, I figure you might want to stockpile some yourselves. After all, you think he's the antichrist.

View user profile
ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:There's no credibility when you get all spun up over a tiny percentage of gun violence and ignore the inner city elephant. Laws and bans only work on the lawful.

Read it again.  I think you missed the entire point...as usual.

You can't have our guns. Give it a rest. More people die from auto accidents.

Here are some facts:


There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.

What it all comes down to is:  who can you really trust?  I sure as hell don't trust a white racist, neo-Nazi with owning a semi-auto firearm modified to fire full automatic.  Fuck the 2nd amendment, it no longer fits.  Owning a simple pistol or rifle is one thing, owning a fully automated rifle is another.  Fuck anyone who belongs to a hate group -- Isis, anti-semite, anti-Latino, whatever.  And, at the moment, yes, I would trust a standing army more than your miserable right to own a weapon with mass-killing capabilities.  Absolutely!!

Because Peedog gave no link for his "facts", I googled it...led me to Ted Nugent's FB page.  Is this your source?  Or is this NRA propaganda?

Facts are hard things to ignore unless you are sipping the demonic left wing kool aid. Why should we punish everyone in America who owns guns when most of the massacres were done by leftist/democrats? There will be a civil war before we give up our guns. What you could do though is try to create a 28th amendment that nullifies the 2nd Amendment. Good luck getting 38 states to agree with your lunacy though. It ain't happening. Everywhere we have seen the confiscation of weapons, we have seen genocide- Germany, Russia, China,
Cambodia etc. The Second Amendment is about controlling politicians and those who would abuse power. It's never been more relevant now. Given y'all hate for Trump, I figure you might want to stockpile some yourselves. After all, you think he's the antichrist.

Japan hasn't committed genocide on its citizens, and neither has Australia or England. The facts just don't agree with your panicked rhetoric. As for a civil war if all guns are to be confiscated, so fucking what? You gun nuts don't equal even half of the adult population here -- and we would have a real military to force the issue. You want us to pry your automatic firing rifle from your cold dead hands? That's okay with us. The mass shootings of Columbine and Las Vegas weren't done by liberals -- and I wouldn't change my goal of getting real gun control even if that bullshit was true. The Oklahoma bombing attack wasn't done by a liberal.

Because of folks like you, folks like the Vegas shooter were able to acquire and stockpile weapons he modified to become machineguns. Sorry little boy, but there's a price to pay for letting gun nuts loose on all of us.

View user profile
ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
ALTLEFTCRIMINALS wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:There's no credibility when you get all spun up over a tiny percentage of gun violence and ignore the inner city elephant. Laws and bans only work on the lawful.

Read it again.  I think you missed the entire point...as usual.

You can't have our guns. Give it a rest. More people die from auto accidents.

Here are some facts:


There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.

What it all comes down to is:  who can you really trust?  I sure as hell don't trust a white racist, neo-Nazi with owning a semi-auto firearm modified to fire full automatic.  Fuck the 2nd amendment, it no longer fits.  Owning a simple pistol or rifle is one thing, owning a fully automated rifle is another.  Fuck anyone who belongs to a hate group -- Isis, anti-semite, anti-Latino, whatever.  And, at the moment, yes, I would trust a standing army more than your miserable right to own a weapon with mass-killing capabilities.  Absolutely!!

Because Peedog gave no link for his "facts", I googled it...led me to Ted Nugent's FB page.  Is this your source?  Or is this NRA propaganda?

Facts are hard things to ignore unless you are sipping the demonic left wing kool aid. Why should we punish everyone in America who owns guns when most of the massacres were done by leftist/democrats? There will be a civil war before we give up our guns. What you could do though is try to create a 28th amendment that nullifies the 2nd Amendment. Good luck getting 38 states to agree with your lunacy though. It ain't happening. Everywhere we have seen the confiscation of weapons, we have seen genocide- Germany, Russia, China,
Cambodia etc. The Second Amendment is about controlling politicians and those who would abuse power. It's never been more relevant now. Given y'all hate for Trump, I figure you might want to stockpile some yourselves. After all, you think he's the antichrist.

You are a lying piece of trash. You obviously don't want to admit where you got your "facts".


So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?

By Jeffrey Toobin
December 17, 2012

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government.
Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

***********

View user profile
How do you propose to fix the vast majority of our gun violence in inner cities committed by felons?

View user profile
I personally see no logical reason for owning a large capacity semi-automatic "assault rifle" but at the same time I realize an individual intent on harming large numbers of people have many ways to accomplish their goal. Witness the rash of cars plowing into crowds abroad.

How many signals that something was wrong were missed over the years concerning the freak in L.V.?

Laws are only effective when people choose to obey them, criminals don't care so all the laws in the world won't change a thing.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:How do you propose to fix the vast majority of our gun violence in inner cities committed by felons?

Add heavily armed law enforcement presence, and make drugs legal. Allmost all the murders you are referring to deal with heavily guarded drug sale terrain. We need to start treating addicts as people who need medical help and treatment, not criminals. Take the money away from the illegal drug trade, and you simultaneously remove the motive of gangsters to protect terrain. We all note, by the way, your total inability to suggest a remedy for anything you like to whine about.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:How do you propose to fix the vast majority of our gun violence in inner cities committed by felons?

Add heavily armed law enforcement presence, and make drugs legal. Allmost all the murders you are referring to deal with heavily guarded drug sale terrain.  We need to start treating addicts as people who need medical help and treatment, not criminals.  Take the money away from the illegal drug trade, and you simultaneously remove the motive of gangsters to protect terrain.  We all note, by the way, your total inability to suggest a remedy for anything you like to whine about.  

Ah... the police state. But I agree with the concept that police should protect the peace... that means going to the root of the problem. Fix it and withdraw. I also agree with drug legalization. Some people are going to ruin their lives... they should be free to do that. Bad ideas fail. Freedom has inherent risks... it always has. We need to accept that as a society and preserve our inalienable rights to pursue happiness and opportunity.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:How do you propose to fix the vast majority of our gun violence in inner cities committed by felons?

Add heavily armed law enforcement presence, and make drugs legal. Allmost all the murders you are referring to deal with heavily guarded drug sale terrain.  We need to start treating addicts as people who need medical help and treatment, not criminals.  Take the money away from the illegal drug trade, and you simultaneously remove the motive of gangsters to protect terrain.  We all note, by the way, your total inability to suggest a remedy for anything you like to whine about.  

Ah... the police state. But I agree with the concept that police should protect the peace... that means going to the root of the problem. Fix it and withdraw. I also agree with drug legalization. Some people are going to ruin their lives... they should be free to do that. Bad ideas fail. Freedom has inherent risks... it always has. We need to accept that as a society and preserve our inalienable rights to pursue happiness and opportunity.


Am I mistaken, or did you and I agree on this? There's hope for America yet! LOL

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum