Looks like Obomber is going to use today's shooting to create a constitutional crisis

[ShenLung]

Aww, man ... AJ can really throw a wet blanket on a party, can't he? Fortunately for us non-elites, the crowd that wants to rule the world invariably act from selfish desires, and each and every one of the boogers wants to be the head honcho. They may pull together for a bit, but eventually they will go after each other like cuttlefish. Bad for us, but worse for them.

 

I'm going to shift from wondering about what the Administration is going to do regarding the latest mass murder, and contemplate what we non-power-crazed folks can get out of this. Right now, thousands of parents are becoming more actively involved with their children. They are treasuring those kids, thinking about how to best protect them; in some cases, that means pulling them out of the public indoctrination centers, if they can. Not all of them will continue, I believe a lot will eventually drift back into complacency, but the effect of the kiddos that experience a change in their life's trajectory may have profound consequences in the years to come. I think that is something worth encouraging.

[madMUHHH]

I copied and pasted a portion of a facebook post. History buffs can correct it here, if there's anything inaccurate...

[stuff]

 

So what exactly is this supposed to imply? That totalitarian regimes like to control their poeple and don't bother too much about killing whatever part of the population is in their way. Sure, no doubt about that. That if there hadn't been a gun control there would have been less atrocities? Debatable (at least in the cases of Germany and the Soviet Union, I don't know enough about the historical circumstances of the other states to make qualified judgements about those) but possible. That introducing a stricter gun control in the US will somehow lead to more people beeing killed? That really does not follow at all in my opinion.

 

If one were to make any reasonable guess as to what might happen if the US introduced more strict gun regulations, it probably would be more fruitful to look at political systems that are actually comparable to the US. Modern Europe for example.

Edited December 18, 2012 by madMUHHH

[Aetherous]

So what exactly is this supposed to imply?

 

....I don't want to get into arguments. Do you really not understand? It's in regard to the US Second Amendment. The fact that the US is armed, is precisely why a totalitarian regime hasn't yet taken us (overtly).

 

I posted this article earlier, which is a brief glimpse into Modern Europe's problems.

 

In the past few days of researching all of this, I've come across numerous instances of concealed carry holders stopping violence from turning into catastrophes. There are a lot of examples, on youtube and from various news sources. So I guess, we're just not going to see eye to eye, when I believe that Americans having guns is a great thing. When I believe that if people in Sandy Hook Elementary had weapons, this wouldn't be so devastating.

[madMUHHH]

....I don't want to get into arguments.

 

Fair enough. Not trying to get into arguments either, this is also most likely going to be my last post on the subject matter anyways.

 

 

Do you really not understand? It's in regard to the US Second Amendment. The fact that the US is armed, is precisely why a totalitarian regime hasn't yet taken us (overtly).

 

Ok, if that's the point you are trying to make, then I guess the statistics you posted do kinda fit into the picture. Not sure I agree on this, but honestly, this is not something I'm able to judge anyways. All you US people will probably know better about your own history and current political situation than I do.

 

So I guess, we're just not going to see eye to eye, when I believe that Americans having guns is a great thing. When I believe that if people in Sandy Hook Elementary had weapons, this wouldn't be so devastating.

 

Yeah, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Even though I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with you about the last point, although I'm not sure to what degree a general statement about gun control could be deduced from that.

 

 

But whatever, I'm out here. Peace.

Edited December 18, 2012 by madMUHHH

[Aetherous]

No hard feelings, man. Feel free to post. I was just saying that I don't want to argue...if it gets to that point, I will shut myself up.

[joeblast]

I read an assertion that we'd have had present day technology by about AD 1200 or so had the Romans not spent themselves into oblivion and had their empire collapse. I think it was in the context of the US spending itself into oblivion. Well, and a bunch of other countries too.

[Jetsun]

They should really stick to the constitution and allow people to carry single shot muskets which can unload a few shots a minute

[Enishi]

A significant element, perhaps THE most important element of the Romans collapse was their treatment of the land they lived on. They cut down the forests en mass to supply their energy needs, and eventually had to import wood from outlying territories as the forests dissapeared. In addition, they depleted the quality of the soil through inefficient farming methods. Money and accounting is an abstract creation secondary to physical energy, and, along with other components of the Roman collapse, needs to be examined in relation to their treatment of the land and its energy.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Enishi

[Aetherous]

A close high school friend of his...

http://cnnradio.cnn.com/2012/12/18/the-struggle-of-knowing-newtown-shooter/?hpt=hp_t1

[joeblast]

A significant element, perhaps THE most important element of the Romans collapse was their treatment of the land they lived on. They cut down the forests en mass to supply their energy needs, and eventually had to import wood from outlying territories as the forests dissapeared. In addition, they depleted the quality of the soil through inefficient farming methods. Money and accounting is an abstract creation secondary to physical energy, and that along with other components of the Roman collapse need to be examined in relation to their treatment of the land and its energy.

yessir, at root, resource abuse, whether its money or energy, food, etc

[ShenLung]

I read an assertion that we'd have had present day technology by about AD 1200 or so had the Romans not spent themselves into oblivion and had their empire collapse. I think it was in the context of the US spending itself into oblivion. Well, and a bunch of other countries too.

 

Ah, what marvels might we now behold, if only we were to able to restrain our endless lusting for the unobtainable ...

brings to mind this history channel bit

 

 

I'm not so sure about the little green men, but high technology in the past isn't too strange to contemplate.

There are still paleolithic people running around, some barely contacted, or maybe not at all.

(sorry, had to go there .. Joe started it! )

[Aetherous]

Yup, referenced that earlier. Shady as fuck...how rare is that combination of words???...especially when The Dark Knight Rises had a blatant anti-OWS agenda (despite what they claimed).

[Aetherous]

I am not counting on a shift in consciousness.

 

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!"

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

[Birch]

So back to the idea that there's an 'elite obligation' to disclose their projects?

Of course it's the kind of thing that would give anyone the 'batshit crazy' label soon as look at them.

 

I don't know where to start on the gun control issue. Guns are not a part of my life. However, the US did constitute that country with the right to bear arms. Would it be possible to leave off the extreme end of the solution ('ban') and do other things that would ensure more responsible ownership? Sounds like getting a driving license in the US is harder than getting a gun at present.

 

 

[Aetherous]

http://youtu.be/ibRw4R8j35o

Edited December 19, 2012 by turtle shell

[joeblast]

lanza was turned down trying to purchase a rifle in the days before...too bad mum's guns werent properly locked.

[joeblast]

I'm all for this sort of gun control - where is it written in our laws that it is ok to distribute weapons to entities in other countries?

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/cbs-news-fast-and-furious-gun-found-at-site-where-mexican-beauty-queen-killed/

 

Of course I fully believe Holder's, Jarret's, Obama's heads should be on metaphorical stakes for this, but since the media isnt interested in calling Obama out on a single thing he's done incompetently, wrong, illegal, or otherwise, it merely gives them the ability to say what me worry? And the issue gets lost in the 24 hour news cycle, people forget all about Obama being far more of a war criminal than bush ever was, even according to Nader.

[joeblast]

http://www.soopermexican.com/2012/12/18/how-the-aclu-prevented-sandyhook-murderer-from-being-institutionalized/

 

How the ACLU Prevented Sandyhook Murderer From Being Institutionalized

[Aetherous]

Another coincidence.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2087015/pg1

[Birch]

My IP is banned from that site Turtle, what does it say?

[Birch]

I'm all for this sort of gun control - where is it written in our laws that it is ok to distribute weapons to entities in other countries?

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/cbs-news-fast-and-furious-gun-found-at-site-where-mexican-beauty-queen-killed/

 

Of course I fully believe Holder's, Jarret's, Obama's heads should be on metaphorical stakes for this, but since the media isnt interested in calling Obama out on a single thing he's done incompetently, wrong, illegal, or otherwise, it merely gives them the ability to say what me worry? And the issue gets lost in the 24 hour news cycle, people forget all about Obama being far more of a war criminal than bush ever was, even according to Nader.

 

So it's not written anywhere in US laws that handing out weapons to other countries (or people in them) is legal? Is a law required for this?

[Aetherous]

My IP is banned from that site Turtle, what does it say?

 

In my opinion, it's worth reading that entire thread (for those who are capable of considering conspiracy theories).

 

This might help you get around that: http://www.hidemyass.com/proxy/

[joeblast]

So it's not written anywhere in US laws that handing out weapons to other countries (or people in them) is legal? Is a law required for this?

Well, its certainly not in the constitution. Certain treaties may have said things about arms...I'm honestly not sure where or what the "rulebook" says about this, I was kinda just asking a question and musing...what makes it ok for our government to gives weapons to opposition groups in libya, syria...

 

...especially when most supporters of our current regime if asked in an objective context would be rather against arming rebel groups to the teeth so they can duke it out with the local dictator. I heard that was why ambassador stevens was sodomized and dragged through the streets, because they (MB) were told that he was a gift so they'd have collateral for the return of the blind sheik, but then we up and mount a defense against them and kill 80 of their guys and they were doubly pissed it was just a couple guys that took so many of theirs out. and that's on top of the shiploads of weapons sent to them via turkey.

[Aetherous]

http://www.mtv.com/n...-response.jhtml

 

This POS video and song is only being posted by me, to show that there is actually something wrong here. Inverted crosses and pyramids = not good. You may want to simply not watch...

 

Edited December 19, 2012 by turtle shell

[Birch]

Well, its certainly not in the constitution. Certain treaties may have said things about arms...I'm honestly not sure where or what the "rulebook" says about this, I was kinda just asking a question and musing...what makes it ok for our government to gives weapons to opposition groups in libya, syria...

 

...especially when most supporters of our current regime if asked in an objective context would be rather against arming rebel groups to the teeth so they can duke it out with the local dictator. I heard that was why ambassador stevens was sodomized and dragged through the streets, because they (MB) were told that he was a gift so they'd have collateral for the return of the blind sheik, but then we up and mount a defense against them and kill 80 of their guys and they were doubly pissed it was just a couple guys that took so many of theirs out. and that's on top of the shiploads of weapons sent to them via turkey.

 

Well, the question sounds more like 'what makes it ok for our government to give weapons to opposition groups in libya, Syria...?'

I wouldn't mention any rules in the argument (you're say there aren't to your knowledge any). Not, what makes it not ok (for now).