Parkland School Shooting Discussion Thread

[.ZZ.]

32 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Queens English, ZZ. Not Kings English.  

There is a scene in the movie Inglorious Basterds where "Kings" is used, great movie.

Edited February 17, 2018 by .ZZ.

[Lilly]

7 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

There is a scene in the movie Inglorious Basterds where "Kings" is used, great movie.

 But...that movie takes place during WWII...and wasn't George VI King of England at that time? 

[Aquila King]

11 hours ago, F3SS said:

You often post as if your ideas are so fresh and bold but the reality is that you are young and progressive and full of hubris and full of tired and stale old talking points straight from the left wing playbook that have been heard and argued a million times on these threads for many years. Keep patting yourself on the back though.

Why thank you, I most certainly will.

[.ZZ.]

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

 But...that movie takes place during WWII...and wasn't George VI King of England at that time? 

LOL, I'm weak in the field of English Royalty.

[Lilly]

Just now, .ZZ. said:

LOL, I'm weak in the field of English Royalty.

I was pretty sure it was Queen Elizabeth's father who was on the throne during WWII...I just went a looked and it was George VI. Either way, British English isn't our English ZZ...and if people could hear my accent they'd know it for sure. LOL

[RavenHawk]

14 hours ago, and then said:

The basic rights to life, inherent in that is the right to defend that life, freedom and the chance to prosper in the world in a way you see fit.  He doesn't GUARANTEE success but the rights come with your first breath of air.  Put another way, every other government on earth in the past told its citizens what they could and couldn't do and they enforced it as brutally as they needed to do to control the people.  Our Founders were scholars and philosophers who understood above all else the nature of man and his relationship to power over others.  America was an experiment to see if average people could govern themselves under a set of laws that made THEM responsible to each other if they were to succeed or fail.  It specifically limited the powers of a central government to an enumerated few and specifically gave all the rest back to the people in the states.

Bravo!  Bravo!  This is perhaps the most profound thing I’ve ever seen you state.  And I know many will not understand.  It is not their nature to understand.

[RavenHawk]

13 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Cradle to grave, and you pay for what get

Exactly!  That’s the point.  You get what you pay for.

[RavenHawk]

13 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Sorry And Then but, you through your many of your posts, almost seem to look forward to this civil war.

That, in itself, is a sad factor.

No, he is not looking forward, he just sees what is coming as do many of us.  He is right that it is not the guns but the change in cultural norms.  Primarily the attack on GOD and the diminishing of parental discipline.  But you and those like you can’t comprehend that concept.  We see it on a daily basis on this forum.  It just ain’t going to happen.  And because of that society *WILL* collapse.  I don’t know about you in Canada, but we here in the states, still have a chance to avoid it, although at this point, it is small.  It all depends on Trump and if he can return this nation to be the world leader.  Only time will tell.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Queens English, ZZ. Not Kings English.  

The “King’s Speech” was an unexpectedly good movie. 

[RavenHawk]

On 2/15/2018 at 3:33 PM, freetoroam said:

What are you on about? 

 

On 2/16/2018 at 1:04 AM, Setton said:

I was going to respond to this but I think freetoroam covered it as well as anyone can:

You don’t understand the reference to Adam eating the apple and the Garden of Eden?  When Adam ate of the apple, Man became aware.  He could no longer go back to living blissfully ignorant.  Likewise, our Founding Fathers ate of the proverbial apple of Enlightenment and Man became aware of Natural Rights.  But only America left the Garden.  Even England with the likes of Blackstone and Locke stayed behind with the rest of the world.  Since then, the world has learned that they sacrificed their freedom for security.  And now, you can’t say they have either.  The stage is set for another devastating European war.  The world is in a gilded cage.  And the US is constantly fighting to keep from returning itself.  Obama had been Hell-bent to get us there.  What you don’t realize is that the Garden is an illusion.  We were never meant to stay there.  The Garden was only our cocoon, but the world treats it as the SS Axiom.  When Man fully matures, then things like mass shootings and even wars will begin to wane.  It’ll only happen when we are no longer dependent on government.  Centralized government is the cause of much of the unrest.  It clashes with Man’s Natural Rights.  One can have a culture and not have it bound to an overbearing government.  Every nation needs a government, but it must be limited to allow the complete freedom of the people.

 

Another aspect of this is in AT’s  post #702.  Basically, it is what has become of social norms.  The Industrial Revolution brought us Socialism which is nothing more that Monarchy without the Monarchy, and what negativity has the Information Revolution brought us?  To cause us to drift away from GOD?  This is why there is more hatred and more unrest instigated by selfish little wannabe dictators seeking anarchy and social engineering.  The problem is this and not guns.  Socialism ignores human nature and believes that it can reprogram Man to be more docile.  That act is folly and futile.  Man can only mature but his nature will always be with him.

[+ouija ouija]

Several posters in this thread claim that the reason for civilians wanting to keep their guns is to protect themselves from the Government ........ but how exactly would that work? What sort of situation do they see arising that they would be able to solve with their weapons? Wouldn't the Government be protected by the Armed Forces and the Police Force with their far superior weapon power and armoured vehicles? The general population is not organised enough to have any effect against this. How long would the population's ammunition last against that of the Police and Armed Forces? When you stop and really think about it, this is no argument for civilians keeping their guns. Any civilian rebellion would be crushed before it had hardly started.

[F3SS]

Our police and armed forces are part of our population. Do you really think in this dystopian event that tanks and jets are going to bomb their own home towns? Seriously though, being an armed population is definitely a deterrent to dictatorships. If that right was removed all others are far easier to remove also. 

[F3SS]

The idea that you might as well roll over if you can’t win is hideous. Look at the hard time our forces have in Middle East crap holes fighting inferior forces with inferior weapons. You think 300 million guns in this country don’t stand a chance? C’mon.

[Tatetopa]

19 hours ago, and then said:

That leads to terrible situations at times but that's the price of living in a free country.

Its the price of living in a free country peppered with crazy and hateful people that have the power to externalize their rage and whims in a disastrous manner.  People have different ideas about how to fix it, but at the root it is our current culture.    It seems to have accelerated over the past 30 years.  I was living in Texas, preparing to go to the University of Texas when Charles Whitman became the tower shooter.  It was an awful and unique event in 1966; incomprehensible and without parallel.  Now there are several shootings of around that magnitude every year.  Whitman was what would be described as a good guy with a gun who was supposed to stop bad guys with guns.  Something happened to him one day that derailed his mind.  

I know you can fortify schools to some degree, but it may not make things much better.  I would rather not live in a fortified compound like the tribesmen in Afghanistan.  They don't seem to have a very desirable lifestyle.  Even tribal leaders who travel in armored convoys get assassinated. It is easier to escalate offense than defense I think. This shooter apparently set off fire alarms to get people out in the halls.  The next person could ambush the gate of your fortified school and shoot people on the way out.

So, is some form of mental exam counter to living in a free country?  How far can you go without severely diminishing the rights and privacy of the individual?

[+ouija ouija]

You were happy enough to gun down your own students who were protesting the Vietnam war.

6 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Our police and armed forces are part of our population. Do you really think in this dystopian event that tanks and jets are going to bomb their own home towns? Seriously though, being an armed population is definitely a deterrent to dictatorships. If that right was removed all others are far easier to remove also. 

 

[+ouija ouija]

5 minutes ago, F3SS said:

The idea that you might as well roll over if you can’t win is hideous. Look at the hard time our forces have in Middle East crap holes fighting inferior forces with inferior weapons. You think 300 million guns in this country don’t stand a chance? C’mon.

The population is not organised enough to withstand even a limited response by the Armed Forces. As soon as the smallest pocket of rebellious civilians rose up they would be instantly crushed. The Armed Forces would not be squeamish about doing this because what they were doing would be explained to them in such a way to put doubt out of their minds. They are trained to do what they are told and not think.

[Tatetopa]

15 hours ago, and then said:

Our Founders were scholars and philosophers who understood above all else the nature of man and his relationship to power over others.  America was an experiment to see if average people could govern themselves under a set of laws that made THEM responsible to each other if they were to succeed or fail.  It specifically limited the powers of a central government to an enumerated few and specifically gave all the rest back to the people in the states.

Maybe if we currently prized rationality, scholarship, and philosophy more highly we might be able to self-correct our current trend.   Is education a part of it?  Not just that Washington had wooden teeth or Jefferson had a big signature.  These men grew up in the so -called Age of Reason  they were struggling with just those principles of law, individual rights, the philosophy of man and his place and responsibilities.  It might be good for history classes to study ideas instead of names and dates for a test.

[F3SS]

3 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

The population is not organised enough to withstand even a limited response by the Armed Forces. As soon as the smallest pocket of rebellious civilians rose up they would be instantly crushed. The Armed Forces would not be squeamish about doing this because what they were doing would be explained to them in such a way to put doubt out of their minds. They are trained to do what they are told and not think.

Our soldiers aren’t Nazis. They aren’t going to go to war in their own country that easily.

[Tatetopa]

15 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

I still fail to see God's hand in the work, thereof.

This was the Age of Reason likely when people were examining individuals place in the world without the sanction of an earthly ruler.  There is a fairly short poem by Robert Burns that sums it up; "A man's a man for a' that."  Some went further and dispensed with the deity as the fount of human rights as well.

[+ouija ouija]

2 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Our soldiers aren’t Nazis. They aren’t going to go to war in their own country that easily.

But it wouldn't be a war. Each area with a pocket of protesters would be quickly subdued. It wouldn't be allowed to escalate into a war.

And if groups of civilians did rise up against the Government, who would uphold the law if, as you say, the Police and soldiers would not turn upon their fellow citizens?   The areas would be lawless once people acknowledged the Government no longer had power.

Please could you explain in detail to me how you see a situation arising where civilians rise up, en masse, and attack the Government? What exactly would happen? Members of the Government would be gunned down? What about local government officers? Who would be guiding this uprising and keeping it on track, making sure it didn't get out of hand? All hell would break loose once gun owners got it into their heads they were free to attack 'the Government'. 

[+susieice]

39 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Its the price of living in a free country peppered with crazy and hateful people that have the power to externalize their rage and whims in a disastrous manner.  People have different ideas about how to fix it, but at the root it is our current culture.    It seems to have accelerated over the past 30 years.  I was living in Texas, preparing to go to the University of Texas when Charles Whitman became the tower shooter.  It was an awful and unique event in 1966; incomprehensible and without parallel.  Now there are several shootings of around that magnitude every year.  Whitman was what would be described as a good guy with a gun who was supposed to stop bad guys with guns.  Something happened to him one day that derailed his mind.  

I know you can fortify schools to some degree, but it may not make things much better.  I would rather not live in a fortified compound like the tribesmen in Afghanistan.  They don't seem to have a very desirable lifestyle.  Even tribal leaders who travel in armored convoys get assassinated. It is easier to escalate offense than defense I think. This shooter apparently set off fire alarms to get people out in the halls.  The next person could ambush the gate of your fortified school and shoot people on the way out.

So, is some form of mental exam counter to living in a free country?  How far can you go without severely diminishing the rights and privacy of the individual?

Didn't Whitman's autopsy show he had a brain tumor that may have affected his personality? 

[+and-then]

47 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

All hell would break loose once gun owners got it into their heads they were free to attack 'the Government'. 

That's kind of the point.  And those in government UNDERSTAND this as well.  Ouija, you need to look at the history of guerrilla warfare a bit closer.  Or you need to reevaluate the apparently poor opinion you have of Americans and their desire to fight back against a bunch of others that want to TELL them how they'll live their lives.  No one imagines that such a fight would easy or bloodless.  It would be absolutely APPALLING and it would touch every community in one way or another but it wouldn't begin unless that government decided by Fiat to remove the second amendment.

[F3SS]

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

But it wouldn't be a war. Each area with a pocket of protesters would be quickly subdued. It wouldn't be allowed to escalate into a war.

And if groups of civilians did rise up against the Government, who would uphold the law if, as you say, the Police and soldiers would not turn upon their fellow citizens?   The areas would be lawless once people acknowledged the Government no longer had power.

Please could you explain in detail to me how you see a situation arising where civilians rise up, en masse, and attack the Government? What exactly would happen? Members of the Government would be gunned down? What about local government officers? Who would be guiding this uprising and keeping it on track, making sure it didn't get out of hand? All hell would break loose once gun owners got it into their heads they were free to attack 'the Government'. 

Honestly I don’t have the answers to that but if for some reason the shlt did hit the fan I’d much rather you tell me how we the people have any advantage at all if we were without arms. Because if it came down to it I’d much rather have one or know someone who does. We might not win but without them we would definitely lose.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

Several posters in this thread claim that the reason for civilians wanting to keep their guns is to protect themselves from the Government ........ but how exactly would that work? What sort of situation do they see arising that they would be able to solve with their weapons? Wouldn't the Government be protected by the Armed Forces and the Police Force with their far superior weapon power and armoured vehicles? The general population is not organised enough to have any effect against this. How long would the population's ammunition last against that of the Police and Armed Forces? When you stop and really think about it, this is no argument for civilians keeping their guns. Any civilian rebellion would be crushed before it had hardly started.

First off, our Founding Fathers knew and understood history.  They knew that every government becomes tyrannical even when it first started benevolent.  And in time, that government falls to some sort of failure.  In order to prevent that and form a more perfect union, the Founding Fathers devised a government based on natural rights and not divine right or derivative.  One of the cornerstones of that government was to allow the citizen to provide for their own security (on top of what the government could provide).  As F3SS as pointed out, an armed local population can make life hard for any occupying force.  But you seem to be under the wrong impression.  You seem to invoke that when the smallest pocket of rebellious civilians rose up, that the government would put them down.  As if the people would initiate these events.

But the question is, what is the motivation of that rebellion?  If it is something instigated by the government, then we the people have a right and duty to rise up.  And this usually will happen when the ballot fails.  Initially, the military will probably support the government but when the abuses of the government become more evident, you will see mass munity.  That will be because we have a professional army and they are part of the people.  Why do you think Obama wanted to raise a National Civilian Security Force (NCSF) that was just as armed and funded as the military?  A force that owed it’s loyalty to the government?  That was to counter the relationship between the people and the military.  We have already seen how Obama had decapitated the military leadership and weaponized the government agencies against the people.  The stage was set for Hilary.

Unfortunately, most Americans do not practice the 2^nd Amendment in full.  There needs to be more militias.  We need to raise awareness starting in the schools.  Citizenship should be taught in the schools which includes how to use and respect guns and how to act in a well-regulated militia.  That way you could set up a firewatch among the students to share the duty on a schedule.   That way, not every one would need to carry arms all the time.  Plus, it would solidify the unity and organization of the people into adulthood, making it more difficult of a government gone amok to subjugate the people.

[+and-then]

4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Citizenship should be taught in the schools which includes how to use and respect guns and how to act in a well-regulated militia.

The Left is firmly in control of the schools and it might take weathering a firestorm of protest from the unions and media complex but I think it's time to have that conversation and then DEMAND some changes.  The young people are being taught that America is responsible for all things bad in this world, at least on some level.  Local communities should be able to have organized militias that would be the armed equivalent of "neighborhood watch" and that would take some of the stress off harried and understaffed police departments.  The key is to instill a sense of investment and get people to buy back into the idea of active citizenship.  I would expect the Federal government to resist such ideas and for litigation to work it's way up to the USSC but if the structure of such militias was sound and there was no unreasonable infringement of rights, it should pass the test.  There is at least one such group out there today that I'm aware of and while it certainly isn't perfect, it's at least a beginning.  I use one of their slogans in my signature.