Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
susieice

School Shooting In California

93 posts in this topic

22 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

1) There’s no absolute way of knowing who is a bad guy and who is a good guy.  Awareness would help.  We need to replace fear of guns with respect of guns.  Instead of registering guns, we need to license people.  

2) People need to fully exercise the 2nd Amendment and join a militia and learn how to handle a gun.  Learn how to act as a good guy so others can identify you.  Take gun safety courses.  Do annual firing range qual.  You don’t have to own a weapon but you need to learn how to handle one.  No, it’s not for everyone but offer some kind of incentives to get people involved.

I was surprised that this concept wasn’t mandated in Obamacare… No, I take that back.  Obamacare wasn’t about health of the people, just a form of Munchausen by Proxy to protect the Ruling Elite.

1) Like in most of Europe?  

I agree on that. 

 

2) You mean a sort of conscription like in Switzerland or Israel? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
41 minutes ago, Parsec said:

1) Like in most of Europe?  

I agree on that.

If that means that people are licensed to safely and properly use a firearm but there is no requirement for them to own a firearm.  I.e. there is no tie between firearms and the license.  The license is merely something like a certificate of completion of a gun safety course or perhaps being a name on the rolls of a militia and the training that follows.

 

2) You mean a sort of conscription like in Switzerland or Israel? 

I wouldn’t call it a conscription.  Either completely voluntary or like Switzerland and Israel, which is mandatory service (not conscription).  I’ve discussed this before, just convert our Selective Service from a registry to a para-military peace corps with teeth (a militia).  High school grads offer two years of service to this nation in a variety of fields as well maintaining a military bearing (drills and proper use of firearms).  The following is a letter from George Washington.  And I think it is expresses very well what the intent is.

 

It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.

 

"Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is just as bad as registering guns, or even worst, if you go thru trouble getting a license, it is safe to say you own a gun, and police will visit everyone of those houses with a search warrant, and likely shoot someone in that house, because they are scared, there may  be guns in the house, imo it is even worst than  registering a gun, before cops would only go to those who had guns, they will brake down doors of everyone who is licensed,

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aztek said:

that is just as bad as registering guns,

On the contrary.  It is safer because there are more people.  There is safety in numbers.  In “V for Vendetta”, the government was able to segregate and pacify the people through bread and circuses, but V was able to unite them in numbers and overwhelm government control.

 

or even worst, if you go thru trouble getting a license, it is safe to say you own a gun,

That’s false logic and simply not the case.  The license only confirms that you can properly handle a gun.  You have to be licensed to be in a militia.  A license would be like attaining the first level of achievement (green belt).  The militia will store their own uniform arms.  In no way does it identify you as having a gun.  It’s a shell game and the government is the mark.

 

and police will visit everyone of those houses with a search warrant, and likely shoot someone in that house, because they are scared, there may  be guns in the house, imo it is even worst than  registering a gun, before cops would only go to those who had guns, they will brake down doors of everyone who is licensed,

That’s the whole point of licensing the people and not registering the guns.  There would be more unknowns for the government to deal with.  It will stretch their resources.  And to enter a house looking for guns would automatically activate the local militia.  It would force the government to pacify an entire neighborhood and the minute that happened, the all voluntary professional military would turn on the government. 

 

The loyalty of the military is in defending the people, not the government.  The military are of the people.  Being in the militia is where they got their start in their profession.  They are not conscripts.  Being professional, they won’t put up with the amateur tactics of the government.  The government would have to establish a National Civilian Security Force consisting of rouge Leftist militias that give their oath to the government and not the nation.  I just don’t believe that there would be enough of those.  They’d have to rely on foreign troops and mercenaries.  This active participation in the defense of one’s nation is a hallmark of our Republic and we have wandered too far from it putting our trust too much into government.  We’re seeing the character of that government, MSM/Hollywood, academia and Trump is like a drawing salve.  Trump is our V but not our future.  Our future can only be better if everyone participates.  If we have an active and vigorous body politic then we would have fewer mass shootings.  Because individual responsibility will have returned to the people and we rely less on government.

 

“You politicians have stayed professionals only because the voters have remained amateurs.” - Mary Matthews (Katharine Hepburn) in “State of the Union” (1948).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RavenHawk said:

On the contrary.  It is safer because there are more people.  There is safety in numbers.  In “V for Vendetta”, the government was able to segregate and pacify the people through bread and circuses, but V was able to unite them in numbers and overwhelm government control.

That’s false logic and simply not the case.  The license only confirms that you can properly handle a gun. tharine Hepburn) in “State of the Union” (1948).

it does not work like that , gvmnt will deal with 1 individual at the time,  safety in numbers does not apply here. just like it did not in 1939 in poland, i'm sure many owned a gun, yet soviets did not confront all of gun owners at once, they dealt with everyone individually. safety in numbers did not work then, it wont work now.

no one without an intent to have a gun will jump thru hoops and loops to get a gun license,  that is just reality, just like nobody with no intent of driving a car goes thru troubles to get a driver license.  they get none driver id. 

whether it is gun registry or database of licensees, both are lists of people with addresses that may have a gun. that is enough for a warrant if confiscation happens. 

 

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/11/2017 at 7:23 PM, aztek said:

nope,  i mean you are clueless of the subject in question, she is not. that is all there is to our conversation

Because I am not a US citizen and don't live in the USA? 

 

Applying the same logic, you should stop talking about ISIS and islamic terrorists or Saudi Arabia or UK (for example brexit) or Europe (for example immigration). 

After all you don't live there, you don't know the reality of those places, thus you are incredibly clueless and arrogant. 

And wrong of course. 

 

Or that apply only to the US for some mystical reason? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

If that means that people are licensed to safely and properly use a firearm but there is no requirement for them to own a firearm.  I.e. there is no tie between firearms and the license.  The license is merely something like a certificate of completion of a gun safety course or perhaps being a name on the rolls of a militia and the training that follows.

Yeah, that's exactly what happens in most of Europe. 

It is basically like a driving licence: you don't need to own a car for the license, but you do need the licence for the car. 

For instance in Italy, after the usual background tests, you have to pass an exam and, depending on the type of license you want, provide a valid reason why you want a gun (standard example is a jewelry owner). 

 

18 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I wouldn’t call it a conscription.  Either completely voluntary or like Switzerland and Israel, which is mandatory service (not conscription).  I’ve discussed this before, just convert our Selective Service from a registry to a para-military peace corps with teeth (a militia).  High school grads offer two years of service to this nation in a variety of fields as well maintaining a military bearing (drills and proper use of firearms).  The following is a letter from George Washington.  And I think it is expresses very well what the intent is.

 

It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.

 

"Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289

Conscription is a compulsory and  usually mandatory service.  

Anyway, I get what you mean, no semantics here. 

 

Yes that is a valid argument, but there are more than 200 years between that letter and us, a lot of things have changed meanwhile. 

Sometimes even improved. 

So I get your point, but I think we should try to go past that legacy. 

Of course this is my feeling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2017 at 8:38 AM, Dark_Grey said:

You are right. There is no way of knowing if someone is going to go off the rails 10 years from now. We have a vetting system in place that was designed to separate the pyschos from the not-psychos. It's not a perfect system, clearly, but it is intended to do exactly that.

We know we can't get rid of all the guns, that cat is out of the bag. We also know criminals do not obey the laws. So what is Parsec's solution? You're good at applying a thick layer of skepticism to other's ideas, so let's hear yours. The President has personally tasked you with solving the "gun problem": 

aaaand go.

First port of call would have to be to eliminate the argument that there are too many guns to be able to do anything about the gun problem. Just because a task appears to be too big, does not mean it is impossible.

Even a slow reduction in the guns that are coming into circulation would help the gun violence situation. The very first guns that would be confiscated and destroyed would be the guns that where illegally in circulation or were in the possession of someone with a violent history or conviction. 

Eventually this would decrease the bad guys with guns without having to give more guns to good guys. The responsible gun owners would not even be effected.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kismit said:

First port of call would have to be to eliminate the argument that there are too many guns to be able to do anything about the gun problem. Just because a task appears to be too big, does not mean it is impossible.

Even a slow reduction in the guns that are coming into circulation would help the gun violence situation. The very first guns that would be confiscated and destroyed would be the guns that where illegally in circulation or were in the possession of someone with a violent history or conviction. 

Eventually this would decrease the bad guys with guns without having to give more guns to good guys. The responsible gun owners would not even be effected.

Well, I do appreciate your optimism lol but let's break this down to a micro level: Chicago. Averaging 2 murders per day, plenty of gang violence and riddled with illegal guns. How do we begin rounding up the firearms? 

Reducing the manufacturing of new guns means reducing profits for big, big business. It means going against the almighty NRA lobbyists as well - this is going to be a very uphill and costly legal battle.

My head is swirling with all the variables involved in accomplishing the rudimentary plan you've outlined. Care to help me break some of this down in to steps? I'm curious if to see if it's even feasible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have zero faith in our court system. The police yes, but they get tired of arresting the same people over and over again while the courts keep letting them out.

 

The first clue to who might want Michael Smith dead was found lying next to his bullet-riddled body.

Tucked inside the pocket of Smith's suit coat was a subpoena for him to testify at the trial of Comfort Robinson, a career criminal who, if convicted, faced a 30-year prison sentence on a gun charge.

cont..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bond-witness-murder-20170504-story.html

Or the local mother, a friend near our shop, who was supposed to testify against a gangbanger who shot up an apartment she was visiting and paralyzed her not even two year old child shooting her in the spine. 

These gangbangers are animals. They have absolutely no regard for life whatsoever. When I see some serious actions against them, by the courts, I would consider more restrictions when it comes to legal gun owners.

We all know that isn't going to happen though.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aztek said:

it does not work like that , gvmnt will deal with 1 individual at the time,  safety in numbers does not apply here.

Without the full exercise of the 2nd Amendment, no, it wouldn’t apply.  But if most people were in a militia, the government would have to deal with the group.  The militia is family, the neighborhood.

 

just like it did not in 1939 in poland, i'm sure many owned a gun, yet soviets did not confront all of gun owners at once, they dealt with everyone individually. safety in numbers did not work then, it wont work now.

There’s a difference between a mob and a well regulated militia.  Poland didn’t have well regulated militias.  If they did, the Soviets would have had a more difficult time.  Plus, it wasn’t the Polish army being used to suppress the Polish people.  The Soviets were invading.  Here, it will be the American government that would be going after Americans.  And not some nut and their followers, but the average American in a normal neighborhood.

 

no one without an intent to have a gun will jump thru hoops and loops to get a gun license,  that is just reality, just like nobody with no intent of driving a car goes thru troubles to get a driver license.  they get none driver id. 

If they belong to a militia, they would need a license in order to handle its weapons.  So how much hoop jumping does a teenager go through to get a driver’s license?  Most don’t own a car.  They usually use the parent’s car until they can afford to get their own.

 

whether it is gun registry or database of licensees, both are lists of people with addresses that may have a gun. that is enough for a warrant if confiscation happens. 

That’s the point of defeating the culling of lists.  If most people go through a gun safety course with annual refresher, a database becomes useless.  Hence, there is safety in numbers.  The government still doesn’t know who has a gun but they do know that most everyone is proficient in its use and have the experience of being in a well regulated militia.  Having the ability to tactically maneuver with arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Parsec said:

It is basically like a driving licence: you don't need to own a car for the license, but you do need the licence for the car.

Precisely.

provide a valid reason why you want a gun (standard example is a jewelry owner). 

And that is where the similarities would end.  Here, the reason would be to exercise the individual’s 2nd Amendment Rights.  The government does not need know any other reason.

 

Conscription is a compulsory and  usually mandatory service.  

Conscription carries the implication of an emergency need for bodies to fight a war.  Usually untrained.  The mandatory service I propose is to prevent war.  To provide the nation with man-power for domestic needs.  People would gain skills and experience in all sorts of fields.  Just as Washington’s letter calls for in any very interesting emergency.  I.e. disaster recovery or border patrol, etc.

Yes that is a valid argument, but there are more than 200 years between that letter and us, a lot of things have changed meanwhile. 

Nothing has changed between now and then as far as the intent of the Founding Fathers.  The Constitution is based on human nature.  That never changes.  Governments can still be tyrannical and given time, all governments lean in that direction.  Most are very slow but they all do.  Only the Founding Documents of the US offer a means to correct that.

So I get your point, but I think we should try to go past that legacy. 

But it’s the legacy that is important.  It is the basis of our culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kismit said:

First port of call would have to be to eliminate the argument that there are too many guns to be able to do anything about the gun problem. Just because a task appears to be too big, does not mean it is impossible.

Even a slow reduction in the guns that are coming into circulation would help the gun violence situation. The very first guns that would be confiscated and destroyed would be the guns that where illegally in circulation or were in the possession of someone with a violent history or conviction. 

Eventually this would decrease the bad guys with guns without having to give more guns to good guys. The responsible gun owners would not even be effected.

 

These are the five things I think need to be done.

1.) Make Firearm Safety Mandatory Before Purchase (Like Driving License)
2.) Teach Children & Adults to Respect Fire Arms (Teaching In School)
3.) Reward People For Good Behavior (Merit Base System)
4.) Don't Associate Guns With Only Killing Others (Hunting, Recreational Sport, & Protect)
5.) Research The Epidemic of Mental Health Issues (Most Shootings Happen Do To Mental Health)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RavenHawk said:

Without the full exercise of the 2nd Amendment, no, it wouldn’t apply.  But if most people were in a militia, the government would have to deal with the group.  The militia is family, the neighborhood.

 

yea, but they are not in reality, and it does not seem like it will change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aztek said:

yea, but they are not in reality, and it does not seem like it will change. 

And I agree with that, so what will it take to change that?  I don’t want to hear that it can’t be done, it can.  Look what the Obamas had done to us in just 8 years?  Barack saying “we didn’t build that”.  Michelle saying that we shouldn’t have to work so that we can be free to live.  A whole generation of children grew up on that.  You can see where Trump has been trying to break through.  It is going to be difficult.

 

I bet you that until I had started posting that quote from Washington, no one was even aware of it.  We need to do something that will return patriotism back to all the people.  The message still manages to reach a few and they go serve this nation, so I know the spirit is not dead.  We see that spirit in the way neighbors help each other during hurricanes and unfortunately during mass shootings.  That spirit is still alive in us.  I would imagine that with the right incentives, that spirit would come roaring back.

 

We need to get back to teaching our history in schools.  Teaching the intent of the Founding Fathers and the dangers of socialism and how they sacrificed everything to save us from it.  When you teach people about freedom, it grows inside and blooms.  It expresses itself in the life of the individual.  If we can return to this, then it won’t be a matter of jumping through hoops but the question that the individual will ask, “when will I be old enough to serve?”  Start there and you will build up neighborhoods and family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the quick thinking of school admins to effect an immediate lockdown after reports of outside shooting may well have averted a much larger tragedy.

Good job.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Precisely.

Good! 

 

Quote

And that is where the similarities would end.  Here, the reason would be to exercise the individual’s 2nd Amendment Rights.  The government does not need know any other reason.

Well, each one his own I guess. 

 

Quote

Conscription carries the implication of an emergency need for bodies to fight a war.  Usually untrained.  The mandatory service I propose is to prevent war.  To provide the nation with man-power for domestic needs.  People would gain skills and experience in all sorts of fields.  Just as Washington’s letter calls for in any very interesting emergency.  I.e. disaster recovery or border patrol, etc.

I think you are referring to the draft (as in the US was called). 

Conscription (as generally intended in Europe, with some exceptions) is simply a compulsory service you must provide, it can either be in the military, civil defence and so on and so forth. 

Alternatively a person can exercise his right to conscientious objection and perform some civil service activities instead (elderly care, etc). 

Slowly it is starting to end everywhere (in Italy for instance it has been abolished roughly 15 years ago) replaced by a voluntary system, leading to a "professional" army. 

But, for the amount of months spent in the army (depending from country to country roughly between 6 and 24 months) they did get trained. 

So no, generally speaking it is/was not an emergency situation with untrained people. 

 

Quote

Nothing has changed between now and then as far as the intent of the Founding Fathers.  The Constitution is based on human nature.  That never changes.  Governments can still be tyrannical and given time, all governments lean in that direction.  Most are very slow but they all do.  Only the Founding Documents of the US offer a means to correct that.

Well, again, each one his own. 

The US constitution is a nice and very inspiring piece of work, but I don't hold it as a "secular bible", written in stone. 

Sure, like you say the basics touch on human nature, but the (geo)political, secular and scientific environment around it changed dramatically in the last 200 years. 

There is no more British Empire (the UK is not exactly the same thing), no Spanish Empire (same), no Holy Roman Empire, no Russian Empire, no French Kingdom, no Prussian Kingdom (just to name the main ones). 

All replaced by republics or constitutional monarchies. 

Slavery has been abolished everywhere in the Western countries, even in the USA.

USA itself is united under one flag.

 

 

Quote

But it’s the legacy that is important.  It is the basis of our culture.

Sure, but you can't either be stuck in the past. 

Since we already used driving as an example, for me it is similar: you always have to pay attention at and remember what there's behind you, while at the same time looking at what lays ahead of you, because the road is ever changing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I bet you that until I had started posting that quote from Washington, no one was even aware of it.  We need to do something that will return patriotism back to all the people.  The message still manages to reach a few and they go serve this nation, so I know the spirit is not dead.  We see that spirit in the way neighbors help each other during hurricanes and unfortunately during mass shootings.  That spirit is still alive in us.  I would imagine that with the right incentives, that spirit would come roaring back.

So you posit that patriotism is based on human nature (quoting your reference from earlier) in the same way is solidarity and helping each other out in times of need? 

Do you place them on the same level? 

 

7 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

1) We need to get back to teaching our history in schools.  Teaching the intent of the Founding Fathers and the dangers of socialism and how they sacrificed everything to save us from it.  When you teach people about freedom, it grows inside and blooms.  It expresses itself in the life of the individual.

2) If we can return to this, then it won’t be a matter of jumping through hoops but the question that the individual will ask, “when will I be old enough to serve?”  Start there and you will build up neighborhoods and family.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could you explain what you mean by "socialism" and how this conflicts with freedom? 

Because it didn't really exist as we know it today at the time of the founding fathers, so I don't get what you mean. 

It is a quite broad term encompassing a lot of different concepts, from the examples of Russian totalitarianism to mutualism and anarchism, that are basically the opposite. 

 

2) The Germans and Italians did a wonderful job on that in the thirties and forties.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.