Go Back   Literotica Discussion Board > Main Literotica Forums > General Board

Reply
 
Thread Tools

Old 01-16-2013, 08:48 PM   #301
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
 
koalabear's Avatar
 
koalabear is offline
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: over there----->
Posts: 102,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanH View Post
Watching the rwcj suck each other off while ignoring any form of reality is just...I don't know what it is, tbh.
*views post* Laughs at useless drunken bastard.
__________________
GBers are like Bran Muffins, not much substance, yet they produce a lot of shit. "^^"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 08:49 PM   #302
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
 
koalabear's Avatar
 
koalabear is offline
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: over there----->
Posts: 102,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Renaud View Post
Wait. . . I thought I was Moron? You need to get more nicknames if you can't respect us enough to call us by our handles stupid bear.
You know you are, you're just not the best at anything.
__________________
GBers are like Bran Muffins, not much substance, yet they produce a lot of shit. "^^"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 09:02 PM   #303
cjh
. . .
 
cjh's Avatar
 
cjh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 30,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by bra_man69 View Post
I can't answer that question I don't know anything about said person that's a judgement call based on that person.
He could be bullshitting I'm not therapist.

I answered your question go ahead act like you don't see my question
So the hypocrisy and dishonesty of Obama doesn't make you sick
Of course it doesn't.
because you're dishonest and a hypocrite yourself
Dude, you got bitchslapped left and right.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 09:06 PM   #304
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
 
koalabear's Avatar
 
koalabear is offline
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: over there----->
Posts: 102,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh View Post
Dude, you got bitchslapped left and right.
Pereg, you are starting to sound like MORON, oh wait, never mind.
__________________
GBers are like Bran Muffins, not much substance, yet they produce a lot of shit. "^^"
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 09:45 PM   #305
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
 
mercury14's Avatar
 
mercury14 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by bra_man69 View Post
I can't answer that question I don't know anything about said person that's a judgement call based on that person.
He could be bullshitting I'm not therapist.
Wrong answer. If a patient makes a clear threat like the one I described then the therapist is legally and ethically bound to act.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bra_man69 View Post
I answered your question go ahead act like you don't see my question
So the hypocrisy and dishonesty of Obama doesn't make you sick
Of course it doesn't.
because you're dishonest and a hypocrite yourself
You're wrong above and you were wrong before that about lawyers not falling under Tarasoff laws. But instead of admitting that you're wrong you're scrambling to change the subject.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 09:46 PM   #306
eyer
Literotica Guru
 
eyer is online now
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.
I'm calling bullsh!t on this entire story, vette...

...this dude said, "thwart" - he ain't no Texan.

Probably just a snowbird escapee from socialist Canada...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 09:49 PM   #307
Cade Is Here
Troll Magnet
 
Cade Is Here's Avatar
 
Cade Is Here is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,267
impeach the anointed one?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 09:51 PM   #308
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
 
mercury14's Avatar
 
mercury14 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyer View Post
I'm calling bullsh!t on this entire story, vette...

...this dude said, "thwart" - he ain't no Texan.

Probably just a snowbird escapee from socialist Canada...

You didn't even have to get into it that far. Once you saw who posted the story you should have known it was Onion-level news.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 10:38 PM   #309
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
 
bra_man69's Avatar
 
bra_man69 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: in my cave
Posts: 7,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury14 View Post
Wrong answer. If a patient makes a clear threat like the one I described then the therapist is legally and ethically bound to act.




You're wrong above and you were wrong before that about lawyers not falling under Tarasoff laws. But instead of admitting that you're wrong you're scrambling to change the subject.
You asked me a question I gave you my opinion of that question.
Now you're saying I'm trying to change the subject no I'm not that would be you.
I have been talking about aft and who Obama tried to get confirmed to head the atf.
I kept saying just how big of a fuck up one must be if even Democrats said no
Then it was you that said Mitch McConnell dishonest and hypocrisy and makes you sick.
Then I asked you a question so........
hypocrisy and dishonesty of Obama doesn't make you sick mercury14?
__________________
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.

If God is watching us, the least we can do is be entertaining.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 11:05 PM   #310
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
 
mercury14's Avatar
 
mercury14 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by bra_man69 View Post
You asked me a question I gave you my opinion of that question.
No, you dodged the question. You said mental health professionals shouldn't be required to act to protect someone their patient has a plan to harm. I gave you an example of such a situation where patient stated a clear plan to harm a toddler later that day. And you said "depends if they're serious". Clear intent, clear plan including time it would be committed, clear mental health issue - and you chose to be intentionally obtuse and not answer.

Yes the therapist thinks the patient is at risk for carrying out the plan. Your position is that the therapist should do nothing "because lawyers aren't required to do anything" (even though you were wrong about that as well). Are you sticking to your position that the therapist should let the act occur or are you changing your stance entirely?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bra_man69 View Post
Now you're saying I'm trying to change the subject no I'm not that would be you.
I have been talking about aft and who Obama tried to get confirmed to head the atf.
I kept saying just how big of a fuck up one must be if even Democrats said no
Then it was you that said Mitch McConnell dishonest and hypocrisy and makes you sick.
No Democrats said no (or yes) because no vote on Obama's ATF chief was ever held. That's what a filibuster is - the minority party obstructs so that an up or down never takes place. You really don't know what a filibuster is, do you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bra_man69 View Post
Then I asked you a question so........
hypocrisy and dishonesty of Obama doesn't make you sick mercury14?
Completely off-topic even with the large font.. If you want to start a thread to complain about some Obama policy then please feel free. Perhaps I'll swing by and denounce whatever hypocrisy is exposed there.

Last edited by mercury14 : 01-16-2013 at 11:09 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 11:14 PM   #311
vetteman
Forged In Fire
 
vetteman's Avatar
 
vetteman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 122,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyer View Post
I'm calling bullsh!t on this entire story, vette...

...this dude said, "thwart" - he ain't no Texan.

Probably just a snowbird escapee from socialist Canada...
Shame on you for insinuating Ron Paul isn't a Texan:

"That is why last year, along with Reps. Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and others, we attempted to simply remove the language from the NDAA (sec. 1021) that gave the president this unconstitutional authority. It was a simple, readable amendment. Others tried to thwart our straightforward efforts by crafting elaborately worded amendments that in practice did noting to protect us from this measure in the bill. Likewise this year there were a few celebrated but mostly meaningless attempts to address this issue. One such effort passed in the senate version of this bill. The conferees have simply cut it out. The will of Congress was thus ignored by a small group of Members and Senators named by House and Senate leadership."

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/201...xpands-empire/

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2013, 11:55 PM   #312
LadyVer
Literotica Guru
 
LadyVer's Avatar
 
LadyVer is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ridunculous
Posts: 14,601
Eyer's right about "thwart".
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 12:03 AM   #313
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
 
bra_man69's Avatar
 
bra_man69 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: in my cave
Posts: 7,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury14 View Post
No, you dodged the question. You said mental health professionals shouldn't be required to act to protect someone their patient has a plan to harm. I gave you an example of such a situation where patient stated a clear plan to harm a toddler later that day. And you said "depends if they're serious". Clear intent, clear plan including time it would be committed, clear mental health issue - and you chose to be intentionally obtuse and not answer.

Yes the therapist thinks the patient is at risk for carrying out the plan. Your position is that the therapist should do nothing "because lawyers aren't required to do anything" (even though you were wrong about that as well). Are you sticking to your position that the therapist should let the act occur or are you changing your stance entirely?




No Democrats said no (or yes) because no vote on Obama's ATF chief was ever held. That's what a filibuster is - the minority party obstructs so that an up or down never takes place. You really don't know what a filibuster is, do you?




Completely off-topic even with the large font.. If you want to start a thread to complain about some Obama policy then please feel free. Perhaps I'll swing by and denounce whatever hypocrisy is exposed there.
I have gave my opinion of the questions that was asked.
wrong right or indifferent it doesn't matter they're my opinions.
I don't run or come up with an excuse why can't answer a question that was asked to me like you do time and time again.
Now I see why people have you on ignore.
You come up with some what if I said I can't make judgement on a person I don't know I'm not a therapist.
They had a super majority we already been down this road remember you said four months.
it's not off topic asking you is Obama not the same as what you said Mitch McConnell is
run bitch run come up with some another reason why your to chicken shit to answer a simple yes are no question.
__________________
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.

If God is watching us, the least we can do is be entertaining.

Last edited by bra_man69 : 01-17-2013 at 12:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 12:06 AM   #314
vetteman
Forged In Fire
 
vetteman's Avatar
 
vetteman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 122,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyVer View Post
Eyer's right about "thwart".
The Ron Paul isn't a Texan.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 12:13 AM   #315
eyer
Literotica Guru
 
eyer is online now
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
Shame on you for insinuating Ron Paul isn't a Texan:

You realize Paul isn't a native Texan...

...right?

When you investigate where he came from...

...maybe you'll see then where his "thwart" comes from, too.

A real cowboy down here would never say, “I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary"...

...rather, something like, "You can bet your boots I'll own his skinny little ass on the matter" is much, much more likely.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 12:15 AM   #316
LadyVer
Literotica Guru
 
LadyVer's Avatar
 
LadyVer is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ridunculous
Posts: 14,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
The Ron Paul isn't a Texan.
Last I heard, he claims to be a Texan. But there's been rumors for years that he's either a Yankee or an alien... "thwart" is not in the Texas Dickionary.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 01:15 AM   #317
KingOrfeo
Literotica Guru
 
KingOrfeo is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 25,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post
Shame on you for insinuating Ron Paul isn't a Texan:
Shame on Texas if he is.
__________________
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. . . . Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

-- Thomas Jefferson
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 06:23 AM   #318
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
 
mercury14's Avatar
 
mercury14 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by bra_man69 View Post
I have gave my opinion of the questions that was asked.
wrong right or indifferent it doesn't matter they're my opinions.
I don't run or come up with an excuse why can't answer a question that was asked to me like you do time and time again.
Now I see why people have you on ignore.
You come up with some what if I said I can't make judgement on a person I don't know I'm not a therapist.
They had a super majority we already been down this road remember you said four months.
it's not off topic asking you is Obama not the same as what you said Mitch McConnell is
run bitch run come up with some another reason why your to chicken shit to answer a simple yes are no question.

1) You still refuse to answer my question about whether you think a therapist should have to protect people.

2) You still insist you did answer it even though you haven't.

3) Obama's ATF nominee was nominated four months after Kennedy was incapacitated so there was no super-majority. I keep telling you this and you keep pretending not to hear.

4) I brought up McConnell's filibuster because YOU asked why the nomination hasn't occurred. It turns out that you didn't even know what a filibuster is.

5) You want to change the subject to unrelated Obama issues because you look bad here. Just stop.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 09:50 AM   #319
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
 
bra_man69's Avatar
 
bra_man69 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: in my cave
Posts: 7,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury14 View Post
1) You still refuse to answer my question about whether you think a therapist should have to protect people.

2) You still insist you did answer it even though you haven't.

3) Obama's ATF nominee was nominated four months after Kennedy was incapacitated so there was no super-majority. I keep telling you this and you keep pretending not to hear.

4) I brought up McConnell's filibuster because YOU asked why the nomination hasn't occurred. It turns out that you didn't even know what a filibuster is.

5) You want to change the subject to unrelated Obama issues because you look bad here. Just stop.
You're beyond stupid
I'm done with you
__________________
Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.

If God is watching us, the least we can do is be entertaining.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 09:53 AM   #320
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
 
mercury14's Avatar
 
mercury14 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by bra_man69 View Post
I'm done with you because you're using facts and I just wanted to engage in another emotional rant about Obama.
See ya' 'round.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 10:06 AM   #321
hogjack
Time Passages
 
hogjack's Avatar
 
hogjack is offline
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Knoxheart, North Carolina
Posts: 31,732
BTW: Fuck Texas
__________________
People I Want to Fuck: - 0 -
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 04:07 PM   #322
vetteman
Forged In Fire
 
vetteman's Avatar
 
vetteman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 122,056
Obama lies, big surprise:


Gun Sales and Background Checks: Obama’s Bogus 40 Percent Stat
By John Fund
January 17, 2013 10:01 A.M. Comments133

Of all the gun-control measures touted by President Obama on Wednesday, the one that got top billing was a dramatic tightening of background checks on gun purchasers. Obama himself said the need was urgent because “40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.” But before we make the most sweeping changes in federal firearms law since the 1960s, shouldn’t we at least examine the validity of that figure? It’s about as dubious as they come.

The administration is focusing on background checks in an attempt to drive a wedge between staunch anti-gun-control absolutists such as the National Rifle Association and the average gun owner. Background checks are easily the most popular proposal out there. A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows the public closely divided on banning “assault weapons,” but 85 percent of those surveyed supported universal background checks. “If you look at the combination of likelihood of passage and effectiveness of curbing gun crime, universal background checks is at the sweet spot,” New York senator Chuck Schumer told reporters this week.

Most advocates of gun control believe the “loopholes” in federal law are the rule and not the exception when it comes to gun purchases. A 2011 study by the office of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed that “40 percent of guns are sold through private sellers.” His study went on to says “these sales — which take place in many venues, including gun shows and, increasingly, on the internet . . . fuel the black market for illegal guns.”

Current federal law requires anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling guns to get a license and have any sales go through law-enforcement background checks — whether those sales occur in a shop or in a gun show. If a gun is sold over the Internet, a background check is mandatory. As Breitbart News reported: “If a resident of Denver bought a gun from a store in Tampa, the (licensee) in Tampa would send the gun to (a licensee) in Denver. Once it arrived, the buyer would pay a fee for shipping, taxes on the gun, as well as any mark-up for services. He would also have to submit to a back-ground check just as if he had bought the gun off a shelf in Denver.” In all cases, sales are denied if the person attempting to buy a gun has a felony conviction or, in many cases, a misdemeanor conviction, or if he has a history of mental illness.

The guns that Obama, Bloomberg, and others claim escape background checks are those sold or transferred between private parties. But can that number really be 40 percent?

The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks — which is actually 36 percent — comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.

If that alone didn’t make the number invalid, the federal survey simply asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all Federal Firearm Licensees do background checks, only those perceived as being FFLs were counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no idea that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and so the survey underestimating the number of sales covered by the checks.

Another reason for the high number is that it includes guns transferred as inheritances or as gifts from family members. Even President Obama’s background proposal excludes almost all of those transfers.

If you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through Federal Firearm Licensees and would have been subject to a background check. Only 15 percent would have been transferred without a background check.

Economist John Lott, the author of several landmark studies on the real-world impact of gun control, has concluded that if you take out transfers of guns either between FFLs or between family members, the remaining number of transfers falls to about 10 percent. Those were the numbers from two decades ago. “We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits,” he told me.

Lott says that before any universal background system is passed, flaws in the current system should be fixed. If they aren’t they could lead to “unforeseen” tragedies that would outweigh the benefits of any expanded background-check system.

Lott notes that 8 percent of background checks are initially denied, with almost all of the delays until they are finally approved taking three days or longer. When the reviews were finally finished, 94 percent of “initial delays” were dropped because they were cases of mistaken identity.

Delays are undoubtedly just an inconvenience for most people buying guns. But for a few, such as those in imminent fear of a stalker or others who suddenly need a gun for self-defense, universal-background-check laws could prevent them from defending themselves against assailants.

Lott says his research suggests that expanding background checks “might actually contribute to a slight net increase in violent crime, particularly rapes.” Before we expand background checks he suggests we focus on the real-world statistics, not Obama’s “magical” number, and recognize that criminals are seldom burdened by background checks because they buy weapons on the black market. As for gun bans, they do little to combat crime. When guns were banned in Washington, D.C., or Chicago, the rate of violent crime went up. Even in island nations such as Great Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica, murder rates went up after gun bans were put in place.

And as for background checks, even the most vigorously policed would have done nothing to stop the killers at Newtown or the theater in Aurora, Colo. Adam Lanza stole his guns from his mother’s storage locker after murdering her, and Joseph Holmes’ problems with mental illness were not reported to authorities by his psychologist.

Lott says that it may well be that expanded background checks are reasonable, but only if flaws and delays with the current system are addressed and a cost/benefit analysis is conducted. As he says “passing gun-control laws may make people feel better, but they can actually prevent people from defending themselves.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...stat-john-fund
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 04:11 PM   #323
cjh
. . .
 
cjh's Avatar
 
cjh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 30,548
It's Not the Bad Guys—It's the Guns
Mychal Denzel Smith, January 16, 2013

Since the December 14, 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that claimed 27 lives, children no older than five or six, there have been more than 900 gun-related deaths in the United States. It’s in this context that President Barack Obama, joined by Vice President Joe Biden and children from the country who wrote letters to the president of the wake of the Newtown tragedy, announced his plans for what, if enacted, would be the most sweeping national gun control reforms in more than two decades.

Those new to the cause of defending black life will soon have to face the bleak truth black people have lived with for so long: we don’t often win.
Mychal Denzel Smith

The president signed 23 executive orders that, according to his statement, “help make sure information about potentially dangerous people who are barred from having guns is available to the national background check system; lift the ban on research into the causes of gun violence; make sure doctors know they can report credible threats of violence by their patients; put more resource officers and counselors in schools; and ensure millions of Americans get quality mental health coverage.” He also called on Congress to pass legislation that would, among other things, require background checks on all gun sales, ban military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and provide funding to investigate the causes of violence. Federal legislation may look to the recent gun control law passed in the New York state legislature as a template. According to the New York Times, the New York law “broadens the assault weapons ban to include any semi-automatic with a detachable magazine and one military-style feature” and “requires tighter registration and reporting of arms sales; background checks for all sales, including private ones; and re-certification requirements for gun owners.”

These are the types of common-sense gun control reforms Americans want to see. A Pew Research survey finds that 85 percent of the public favors backgrounds checks for private and gun show sales, 80 percent support for preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun, 67 percent support for a federal database that tracks guns sales, and 58 percent in favor of a ban on semi-automatic weapons. And I have no doubt these measures will reduce the number of mass shootings, but, alone they won’t solve prevent nearly all gun deaths across the country.

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre was deservedly mocked for his suggestion that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” but most popular reforms reflect exactly that thinking. Let’s be honest: we’re not having a conversation about how to most effectively reduce gun violence, but rather about who has the right to own what type of gun. We want to identify the shooters before they have a chance to kill, and prevent them from having access to the most lethal weapons. We’re taking guns out of the hands of some, while permitting others their own personal arsenal.

For instance, there is broad public support for preventing people with mental illnesses from owning guns. The New York law includes a provision requiring therapists to report to authorities any clients who they think are “likely to engage in” violent behavior. Could this provision prevent those desperately truly need mental health services from seeking the help they need out of fear their behavior could be misinterpreted and they could find themselves targets of the state? Could this further isolate those who most need help? Don’t forget that, according to the Times, while people with diagnosable mental illness are responsible for close to 20 percent of rampage or serial killings, they only account for four percent of violent crimes overall. Dr. Michael Stone, a New York Forensic psychiatrist, told the Times that most mass murders are committed “by working-class men who’ve been jilted, fired, or otherwise humiliated.” There is no illness to diagnosed amongst the greatest perpetrators of these heinous acts. Additionally, people with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrator, and those who are suicidal have a much higher success rate when a gun is involved.

But we aren’t concerned with protecting people from themselves. We want to protect us from them.

That’s why background checks for gun purchases have so much popular support, even across ideological lines. We want to identify the people who might do harm before they have a chance and deny them access to guns. Basically, keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys. But what constitutes a bad guy? How do we know?

Because if you were to ask Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, they might say the bad guys are Army veterans with ties to white supremacist groups. If she were still alive, you could ask 22-year-old Rekia Boyd in Chicago, killed by a gunshot to the head while hanging out with her friends, she may have told you it’s off-duty police officers. In Jacksonville, Florida, 17-year-old Jordan Davis might have said that it’s 46-year-old white men and self-described “responsible gun owners” that are the real bad guys. His killer was a previously law-abiding citizen. Seven year-old Aiyana Jones in Detroit might have an altogether different opinion, telling you the bad guys are the SWAT teams on a reality TV show. She was shot while a paramilitary unit, followed by an A&E production crew filming an episode of “The First 48,” stormed her house. It’s all about perspective.

What we’re attempting to enact at this point are a number of measures aimed at preventing mass killings. It’s a laudable goal, and maybe it’s all we can do for the moment. However, those dying in the streets in Chicago, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia, and Oakland, those being murdered by abusive husbands, or even people accidentally shooting themselves aren’t suffering because we don’t have an assault weapons ban. It’s the guns, period.

We must pass some legislation aimed at reducing gun violence because we can’t afford to do nothing. Even as we become a less violent society overall, gun deaths are an epidemic. But what’s on the table isn’t going to end gun violence, though it may placate some of our fears. What we have to face is, entrenched in our culture, is an idea that intimately links guns with freedom. More than self-defense, gun-rights activists invoke the Second Amendment, defending the right to have guns because we have the constitutional right to have guns. It’s a part of our American identity. We have developed a mythology around guns where they have meant freedom for everyone from the founding fathers to Black Power activists. If we’re serious about ending gun violence, we have to ask: what role do guns play in our society, and what role should they play? People keep dying in numbers that astound; yet we are still here trying to prevent a certain type of death from happening from a certain type of person. That isn’t liberty. Are we prepared to actually fight for it?

It’s a big question. But so long as we ignore it in favor of the simplistic binary of good guys vs. bad guys, we will be a nation in mourning, asking ourselves time and time again, “How do we put an end to gun violence?” The wrong question will always lead us to the wrong answer. Maybe it’s time we start asking ourselves if we can imagine a society where we don’t need guns at all.

http://www.thenation.com/article/172...-guys-its-guns
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 04:25 PM   #324
Sean
Μoderator
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Sean is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eating foie gras in a Porsche.
Posts: 80,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by vetteman View Post

Lott says
Fail.
__________________
"Well you are the nice one, you're supposed to think that."
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2013, 09:59 PM   #325
BotanyBoy
Heey maaaan!!
 
BotanyBoy's Avatar
 
BotanyBoy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by BotanyBoy View Post
Once again I ask, what in the mother fuck does the "Gun control advocate" crowd hope to accomplish by banning rifle body kits??? Where are they getting the idea ergonomic grips/stocks/bayonet lugs/grenade launcher mounting barrel profile and mounting points some how makes a semi auto somehow more powerful than any other semi auto??

Do they think banning 4 ft wings and ghey neon lights on Honda Civic's will prevent street racing?


Mmmmhmmm...
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 AM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.