Mass Killings - You Get What You Want in Society

[Jim Naseum]

Funny, I say the same thing about authoritarians. No one is forcing you to live in what is designed as a free country. I think you authoritarians would do better in Iran, or Singapore. I can't understand why you'd want to live in a free, secular, Republic that features free speech? Wouldn't you all rather live in a place where you could dictate what signatures are allowed, what can be said or thought? America, be free or go somewhere else!

[Jim Naseum]

The word reactionary defined people who defy, resist and refute change with every muscle in their body. Anything but change is the battle cry!

This is a nation founded on change. Witness the bill of rights which immediately changed the Constitution! Followed by dozens more amendments.

Without change we would be a slave holding, racist nation where women couldn't vote. Much like Saudi Arabia.

Without change comes death. Change is the cornerstone of America!

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Bella]

The word reactionary defined people who defy, resist and refute change with every muscle in their body. Anything but change is the battle cry! This is a nation founded on change. Witness the bill of rights which immediately changed the Constitution! Followed by dozens more amendments. Without change we would be a slave holding, racist nation where women couldn't vote. Much like Saudi Arabia. Without change comes death. Change is the cornerstone of America!

I'm not sure in what context you are advocating for change. But here are my initial thoughts on it: All too often, especially in our current environment, we seem to want change for the sake of change. The Constitution and Bill of Rights took years (a decade?)of squabble to formulate. The Patriot Act took a month. The ACA wasn't even read before being passed into law. The president is about to issue Executive Orders on gun control in response to the recent shootings (Illegally?). Knee jerk reactions without careful consideration and debate in a country this size without truly knowing the affect is dangerous.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons we are in the trouble we are in as a nation.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Bella

[Jim Naseum]

The context for my comments was to answer the folks who like to say, " stop trying to change America, go somewhere else! "

That's what I regard as reactionary.

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

Oh yeah he did. But not for being a socialist. And his sentence was commuted fairly shortly thereafter, which of course the students of history would know.

Yeah, only 18 months, and commuted by a new president, Harding, he ran against from prison. He was disenfranchised for life. For speaking out against a war, and the Supreme Court affirmed it.

I don't know if his being a socialist was brought up in his trial or not, he represented himself as I recall.

[jacksonbart]

I never asked for this shit.

[Jim Naseum]

"Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die." - E. Debs, 1918

[Travis In Austin]

For Readers of "Mother Jones" news and others--Just quit trying to change our country.

If you don't like America--There are Places like England where you can live in Gun Free Countries.

Of course so many Murders are committed with knives in England that they have Knife Sale Restictions.

This will Not be that place---

The article is from the Uber Liberal Post

I'm done too -- No one is forcing you to live here--

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Quit trying to change our country? You mean on the gun issue, or in any respect?

Is it perfect now, as is, or can it be improved? If it is perfect now we need people to run that will commit to blocking anything new, voting NO on any bill, regardless of what it is and with a dedication to not offer any new legislation during their term.

If it is just the gun laws that need to remain the same and not be changed, who is trying to change them and how?

Or is it that they are just expressing an opinion as to how they would like things to be, or political dissent?

If you want to change something does that necessarily mean you dislike America?

That was an interesting article. I have read some things by that law professor before, he seems to be pretty middle of the road. He said this at the end of the article:

"Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1 percent of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Still, people had asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter, so here is what I found."

That is consistent with what a few people on here have said.

[oldtimer]

"Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die." - E. Debs, 1918

Um, that was originally Tennyson from The Charge of the Light Brigade.

[oldenough]

Would it be treacherous or un-patriotic for me to suggest that the founding fathers are to blame for this shit? People hold the constitution up like it is a holy book....either of which were written by men, who are fallible....But no, I don't think so, I think the problem lies in the way people like to interpret it, another similarity with holy books....No consensus will ever be reached. It's funny how people will yell and scream "It's in the constitution" when it suits their argument...But will say "F### the constitution" when it's held up as an argument against them.

Edited October 6, 2015 by oldenough

[Jim Naseum]

"Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die." - E. Debs, 1918

Um, that was originally Tennyson from The Charge of the Light Brigade.

But, used with such perfection of application in the speech that sent Debs to prison. You didn't appreciate that?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited October 6, 2015 by jo56steph74

[Jim Naseum]

Dissenters are always despised in crowds big and small. This phrase of the 1970s encapsulates the idea: "America, love it or leave it. ". The reactionary battle cry throughout the culture.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[jjptkd]

Gun control:

[oldtimer]

 

 

"Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or die." - E. Debs, 1918

Um, that was originally Tennyson from The Charge of the Light Brigade.

But, used with such perfection of application in the speech that sent Debs to prison. You didn't appreciate that?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

That's all good.  I just have a thing for misattribution of the original source. 

[Travis In Austin]

Would it be treacherous or un-patriotic for me to suggest that the founding fathers are to blame for this shit? People hold the constitution up like it is a holy book....either of which were written by men, who are fallible....But no, I don't think so, I think the problem lies in the way people like to interpret it, another similarity with holy books....No consensus will ever be reached. It's funny how people will yell and scream "It's in the constitution" when it suits their argument...But will say "F### the constitution" when it's held up as an argument against them.

Well they left many things in vague on purpose. A national bank isn't specifically mentioned, but was held valid as "necessary and proper." That is just one example. No right of "self-defense" is mentioned, but Scalia found a historical basis for one in the 2nd Amendment. There is no right of privacy listed, but depending on which aspect of that right you are talking about, it will certainly cause people to be all for it one minute, and completely against the next.

In their defense, the framers knew from the beginning that they were fallible and knew that it would need to be changed. They also knew that the minority would need protection from the majority.

They did build right into the document two seperate and distinct ways to change it, and it has been many, many, times.

One of the fundamental concepts of the document is that it has mechanisms to prevent mob rule.

The best example is how senators are elected, their terms, the number that come up for election each time.

The Federalist papers pretty much explain the thought process behind it all, together with the journal kept by Maddison.

The entity charged with interpreting it, SCOUTUS, is also fallible, and has made many, many mistakes. But as imperfect as it all is, I think it is the best system ever created by man.

Edit: But it would be neither treacherous or unpatriotic to say that there are parts of the constitution you disagree with, or decisions you think are unsound. It would be unpatriotic if you didn't speak your conscious in one form or another. Voting, a letter to the editor, elected official, etc.

Edited October 7, 2015 by dwilawyer

[Islander]

 

 

Win-win?  Kids in classes and playgrounds wearing sidearms?  Would they be permitted to wear their sidearms during sports activities as well as in class?  You don't want your kids to only be safe some of the time; they deserve to be safe all the time, right?  Pistol-packing football players start to sound like a good idea at that point.

 

After-school rumbles would be really serious.  And in class, what teacher would give a load of homework while looking at the pistols on her students' desks?

 

You seem to think that crazy gunmen look for a place to indulge their hobby or make a statement, so they pick a school because there will be nobody there with a firearm.  No, they pick a school because they don't like way the people at that particular school treated them, that's why.  They don't care who is armed, because they'll still manage to shoot at least a few before getting killed.  They might even see armed guards as a bit of a challenge, something to make their last minutes of life a bit more interesting, or to make them seem a little more heroic in their own minds, or those of the idiots who support them online.

 

Suicidal mass murderers don't expect to walk away, and don't care.  The vast majority of mass shootings occur at schools, colleges, or workplaces, and the killers are people who attended or worked there, and really hated some of their teachers, fellow students or co-workers.

 

It seems like a "modest proposal" to me westie.

 

 

A "modest proposal"?  Good one, oldtimer, you're pretty swift.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Islander

[Jim Naseum]

But as imperfect as it all is, I think it is the best system ever created by man.

.

"Best" of course depends on the design goal. It guarantees a narrow voiced rule by elites. It doesn't accommodate the small and varied dissenting voices always present in say, parliamentary systems. It's a veneer thin democracy, and getting thinner each generation. Our ruling power structure is fully homogeneous around neo liberal economics (not good for working people).

So, if "man" is supposed to include the masses as well as the elites, it's not the best system ever created.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[oldenough]

But it all sounds very good to the "masses"....That's what is so very clever about it.

[Paducah Home Theater]

After-school rumbles would be really serious. 

 

[Travis In Austin]

But as imperfect as it all is, I think it is the best system ever created by man.

.

"Best" of course depends on the design goal. It guarantees a narrow voiced rule by elites. It doesn't accommodate the small and varied dissenting voices always present in say, parliamentary systems. It's a veneer thin democracy, and getting thinner each generation. Our ruling power structure is fully homogeneous around neo liberal economics (not good for working people).

So, if "man" is supposed to include the masses as well as the elites, it's not the best system ever created.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

What would that be?