^
Maybe banning anyone who posts on internet forums would be a good start.
Especially those with tens of thousands of posts.
At least it would prevent AO and CT shooting each other.
Printable View
^
Maybe banning anyone who posts on internet forums would be a good start.
Especially those with tens of thousands of posts.
At least it would prevent AO and CT shooting each other.
If it restricts easy accessability to firearms then it's a start. In light of recent history events surrounding the slaughter of innocent students/schoolchildren in the US long before Newtown, i suppose it could hardly be described as a knee-jerk reaction. What the US has now is a long overdue national issue on gun control.
The real debate is not about do they/don't they, it's about how far a change in legislation is required in order to make US citizens safer.
A credible government's primary task is the protection of their own citizens. The US have been sadly failing in that department
^All emotional clamoring for gun control only distracts from the real issues of mental health and a failed social environment. And it completely avoids addressing the issue of out of control government. Giving more power to government and negating social responsibility is what brought us to the current crisis.
Or perhaps you think having armed survalance drones hoverring over all resgistered gun owners will make you safer! Where does it stop?
It's pretty freaking obvious that the bigger and more intrusive government has become over the past 50 years the worse the situation has become.
Clipping government is the only real solution.
What is the "...failed social environment..." and what should government do to make it work? Would fixing it require more or less government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
How would this "minimal government state" govern in the interests of the people? How would people be secure in their persons and property without policing and regulation by the government. Would you want, for instance, for government to keep it's hands off your Medicare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Medication might help. Outside of the cartoon paranoid fantasies of the tin-hat crowd, where do these drones hover? Are black-helicopters the perecursors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
The failed social environment is where you have over 60 million people on food stamps, you have generations of welfare babies who are encouraged to have even more babies.
As far as firearms go there are more guns being sold now than ever, largely thanks to current government actions.
People should be encouraged to take charge of their own food supply on a local level.
People should be rewarded for enterprise not punished. The current tax system punishes those who produce and rewards those who dont. Hence the exodus of jobs and industry from the USA over the past two decades.
You shouldn't need a team of lawyers to open a lemonade stand!
The burden should be on government to live within it's means.
More government is not the answer. The government is the problem.
Currently the drones are being used to murder people overseas. But they're itching to start using them domestically.
The US government is an out of control monster, and you trust them to further regulate firearms for private citizens! Are you nuts?
The money to that 60 million pales to the money the government hands out to welfare queens like like Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Daddy Wall St., etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Nonsense. Because of a spike in gun sales after talk of gun legislation started creeping up..? It's not just the number that are sold, it's to who they are sold to. By the Senate vote today, the NRA and those who support it have established themselves as gun-runners for crazy people and criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Glad to tell you that I think there is a movement, quiet as it is, to do just that. I think the government--was it one of those "government control agencies" like Food and Drug or The Agriculture Dept., that put out a statement about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
The jobs are leaving because the other Government--the Corporate interests--have no allegiance to the government itself, or the society that they influence and control. The population is just a commodity to these entities, and it doesn't matter the flag above. Kill the unions, kill the buying power, kill the jobs, then move on. Since these entities provide such important function for the safety and well being of people, an argument is made that they should have their free-ride stopped. But that would be Socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
No you shouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
All governments, to my knowledge, borrow and live "in the future", as it were. It's a matter of matching appetite with income, and the US has been remiss in that regard for some time. For one solution, see above (hint: Socialism is too simple).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Needs a bumper sticker. Don't forget to quote Reagan. But you don't really want to go there, do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Yes, I think you're right, they are itching to use them here, though I don't know about murdering people. Still, there's a lot of good reasons to get these things under control, and a lot of laws to do it. People have only so much patience and I think they'll step up. Then again, the propoganda mill could ramp something up like they did Iraq and they'll be hovering outside my bedroom window looking for sodomy. So will I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
No, it is a very much in-control monster. Big Money is making big money--more every year--while the regular schmuk is getting screwed without the physical benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Yes, in order to maintain a well regulated militia, the government should be able to regulate firearms for private citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Kinda personal, don't ya think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
WASHINGTON — An angry President Obama criticized a minority of the Senate on Wednesday for helping defeat a proposal to expand background checks on gun purchases.
"It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington."
Obama was introduced by Mark Barden, whose son, Daniel, was among the 20 children and six adults killed Dec. 14 in a gun massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Besides other Newtown families, Obama was flanked by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head during a 2011 assassination attempt.
MORE: How senators voted
Background check compromise losing support
Out of control in terms of serving the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
Now they serve big pharma, Monsanto, Cargill, Pillsbury, Anjinomoto, jewish banking consortium's and such.
Anyway the gun issue is smokescreen to distract the regular schmucks from the actual issues..
Actually the FDA discourages local food production, like local gardens and cheese producers. When I visit the US I gotta buy the fresh goat cheese direct from the farmer since it's illegal for them to sell it in stores. If the FDA get's wind of them they raid these farmers with guns drawn, it's an unbelievable outrage.
To need a business license for a lemonade stand has gotten beyond ridiculous.
Now they want to spend more on the war on drugs than they spend on NASA!
25 billion for the war on drugs and 17 billion on NASA. Fucking ridiculous man!
And you support it? It's fucking nut's?
For America, and for Democracy. But Washington has no shame. Background checks are supported by 90% of the population according to polls, even a crushing majority of gun owners, and the US Congressional system had largely eviscerated it before it even reached the Senate, and even then rejected it. You the sheeple do not even factor to government any more, except as massed units to be manipulated and lied to. You have just had your face spat on by your own government Americans- how are you gonna react to this? Buy more guns, and watch Glen Beck I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Jones
Earl is right in one regard- your government is out of control. It does not report to 'we the people' at all. Frankly, I think it is way past time for civil insurrection and taking to the streets- you need to take your country back, or suffer the consequences (ps, you already are). But you won't. About the only 'peoples movement' capable of organising that- organised labor- has already been largely eliminated. America has suffered a quiet Coup, it's that simple. It remains a democracy in name only. I advise mass general strike action as an effective exercise of peoples power, but this to a disempowered and divided civilian population that can not organise a piss up in a brewery. Real community organisers should get out of government now, they are the enemy. Real politicians should start looking at mechanisms outside the Beltway too. Imo Washington has become more than just dysfunctional now, it is actually evil. The potential danger it poses is far wider than to just American citizens, unfortunately.
US have much more pressing serious issues than those hap-hazard gun control measures, they try to push them through on the background of a few new, fresh in peoples minds, single tragic cases they can use almost like free advertisement for their dirty political point scoring games.
Background checks should of-cause have been mandatory with all gun purchases since many many years back, and introducing them now will do no harm, but it is too little far to late, it is like pissing your pants and feeling warm for a minute or two, the guns are out there in such big numbers, and are so easy to obtain for everyone who wants one, that no amount of control introduced now will have any effect on US gun crime for decades to come.
Further more the (semi-automatic) "assault" weapon thing is such a dilettante amateurish emotional blunder that it has severely tainted the sane proposals that even if not hugely effective, anyway would have been very small steps in the right direction like the mandatory background checks.
The unbridled strange outbursts of massive deadly violence in the US perpetrated by insane ass-hole individuals, and the predominant aggressive demeanour of US society have other much deeper social/cultural causes than just "gun ownership", and that is not tackled with popular vote fishing gun control measures on the backs of tragically murdered school kids, it smells like the worst nauseating Hollywood puke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Excellent post! The (primarily liberal) "social engineering" over the last 3 decades has resulted in generations of people growing up with a feeling of entitlement and disrespect for Rule of Law. So it's no wonder today's generation gets pissed and throws a tandrum which might include stealing a parent's gun and opening fire on a group of innocent children.
The real shame is that liberal politicians (and their constituents) still don't get it. Whenever conservative politician's try to introduce legislature to toughen up sentencing for violent offenders (including child-killers), liberal politicians vote it down.
After yesterday's Senate vote to kill ill-conceived gun bills, VP Biden stood with his arms crossed with a pout on his face. He looked like a little boy being punished for hitting his sister. What kind of message is that giving to children? If you don't get your way, you should act out.
The fact that US immigration laws are being ignored by almost every level of government up to and including the presidency, basically teaches children it is okay to ignore laws if you don't agree with them. (Even worse when a state such as Arizona tries to enforce the laws, and the Feds step in and prevent them.)
So much for the "progressives" impact on our society.
RickThai
FFS- you have more people in jail than any nation on earth, even China with about four times your population. But at least your massive jailbird population are living in the land of the free. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RickThai
I agree- copy the conservative Eisenhower model. Go back to a time when government could finance itself, and do it's job. Leave the rest of the world alone, while you sort out your own not inconsiderable problems. If yer can't even get it right in your home, don't tell us what to do in our home.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickThai
No, but what is the alternative, Sabang?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Serious question.
Any "controls" or "bans" will not impact anyone who wants to go on a shooting spree.
For years, there was thought to be 170-220 million guns in circulation. Now, some think the figure is around 300 million. The higher number of 300 million makes sense because many people own more than once gun in a population of 315 million.
There will always be guns available to those who want to do awful things with them.
I wish there were 0 guns in the US, but that is not the case.
[quote=RickThai;2423267]The Great Society legislation and massive spending of the 1960s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
That was a failure.
Now we are even more "progressive" if you look at many factors including all of these "programs."
Things have not gotten better, they've gotten worse if you look at the number on disability, food stamps, and are categorized as eligible for admissions based on the ethnic background.
I see the "gun control" -- I always laugh at the term "control" by the progressives as more failure.
Gee, I bet nothing like that ever happened in the good old 19th Century Christian Nation. And by the way, what is this myth about liberal social engineering you guys are trying to create. You mean like, Gay Culture? And if it's true, is there any data, statistics, studies...or just myth? I can think of some conservative social engineering--like prayer in school, take away freedoms of choice for women--that they try to ram down our throats.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickThai
Are you suggesting that progressive political ideals are responsible for the mess the country is in with guns, poverty, and a tax code way out of balance in favor of the rich. It was post war America. We came out of it relatively unscathed and in a position to be the major world economic power. Eisenhower looked after his constituancy and followed the values of the Party of Money and did nothing about Jim Crow American terrorism. Eisenhower wasn't all bad, but hardly a role model for creating a good society.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
I saw an auto accident where both parties had driver's licensces. Obviously we should do away with that inconvenience since it won't stop lousy drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by barbaro
I just listened to a police chief in a major US city say that "most of the guns used by criminals were purchased through the background loopholes of the internet, private sales or gun show sales". He and most police organizations around the country think background checks will have an effect on reducing shooting sprees. So do I.
No, I don't. But you ain't gonna get the guns ... EVER. Get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Indeed not- and neither did any of the proposed legislation suggest any such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
Assault weapons ban- dead in the water, never seriously got off the ground.
Magazine clips- seemed to be a goer, then summarily dropped by the Beltway cowards.
Background checks, totally watered down, then eliminated by the Senate traitors- who by traditional standards, should probably be hung for treason. But the 'background check' thing was already a joke anyway.
That isn't government of the people- that is a sick joke. You have a serious problem America.
According to this Article, Thailand has a very serious problem with Gun crime, and from what I hear and read Thailands gun laws are quite draconian with it would seem very little effect Murders with firearms statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
Ike was post FDR and pre-JFK/ LBJ. No, 'New Deal', no 'Great society'. No soaring rhetoric, or society changing vision.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
But on his watch, the interstate highway system was largely founded and constructed. Could you see a modern US government investing for the future this way?
On his watch, growth in government spending was kept low, and the government was in budget surplus. So the US government was adequately funded, confidant in the future of the country it was elected to govern, and investing in that future with vision and confidance. No wonder Americans look back to those times with pride.
Compare that to now. The 'Rich' are a disgrace- they can't wait to get their money out of America quick enough, and they pay less tax than the goddamn middle class, ffs- and still complain about it, as the government slides towards insolvency! Some 'Patriots'- if any sense of patriotism exists at all among those people, it is to Israel. The US government, and I'll not mince words, is a vipers nest of traitors and liars. A politician is elected to serve the people who elect him- and if he doesn't, he is a Traitor. By which measure, much of Congress and the Senate should be swinging from a pole. Utterly disgusting- and this in what was once considered the worlds showcase democracy. You have let a lot of people down beside yourselves.
In parting, Ike delivered one of the great prescient speeches of the 20th Century- warning of the dangers of the Military Industrial complex. If only you had listened.
Yes, I think Ike was a very good President indeed. Once, you had people of the calibre of LBJ, Ike, JFK honored to serve their country as President, and they served their country with integrity. Now, weep. A spineless career politician is the best you got, the alternative a horror show. Yet the Presidential office is the only element of the federal government that is not a sick joke- I wouldn't let Congress loose in the Congo. Few people with honor, integrity and capability would even want to be Potus, and deal with that rats nest inside the Beltway. It ain't such a long way from the penthouse to the shithouse. America has a real problem- and it isn't the Budget. It's time your people realised it.
Really his signature achievment by some estimates, and not a bad one at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
I can't argue with that, except for looking back with pride. More like nostalgia, I would say. But it was not a peaceful time, depending on who you were. Social conditions after the war increased frictions under the surface to a simmer, then a boil in the 60s.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
On the face of it the numbers look pretty dire but I wonder if the ongoing insurgency in the south is distorting the stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
You mean the ongoing Islamic Insurgency in the South ?, yeah no doubt it has, but there has only been about 5,000 deaths in total with many killed by bombs ,and Thailand has over 10,000 more deaths than America anyway, maybe the problem here in Thailand is that one can get blown away for the flimsiest excuse, like causing someone to "lose face" and also the many "contract killings" :)Quote:
Originally Posted by quimbian corholla
And do not come crying for sympathy when the next massacre happens as it will .Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
Personally I would have thought you would be the last person any member on this forum could expect sympathy from especially if they disagreed with your point of view :smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mid