close to 20 people dead (including children) in CT kindergarten shooting[views:426180][posts:319]___________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 11:35am - largefreakatzero ""] ^Clear connection and totally creepy, but the article talks about the fact that this connection between the shooters' fathers establishes a motive. A motive to distract from the Libor case? I'm not seeing it. |
| ___________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 11:35am - slar you stupid ""] Ah, yes. Let's be morons and fall for another conspiracy theory. |
| ___________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 11:37am - largefreakatzero ""] I was talking about the article that Aril posted. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 11:42am - ShadowSD ""] DestroyYouAlot said: ShadowSD said:If the Founders of this country saw their sacred right to have a musket in your home stretched to semi-automatics that kill dozens of children in regular mass shootings, they would be disgusted. There's no way to extrapolate that intent from them. None. Correction: If they saw those weapons in the hands of the police and other government forces, and the citizenry not keeping up, they'd be disgusted. Yes. I don't think it's either-or, they'd be disgusted by both. Technological breakthroughs in weaponry since the days of the Founders have raised real problems on both sides of that coin, such as the fact we couldn't stand up to our government right now no matter how powerful our guns, like I mentioned; since the early 80's at least that has been a joke of an idea given the strength of our national defenses and intelligence. We the citizenry can't keep up. It IS disgusting. But it is also reality either way, a scary reality that we can either sit here and be in denial of or look straight in the face - and since that battle has long been lost, it's time not to surrender other liberties for the sake of one we sadly already have. |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 11:42am - arilliusbm ""] slar%20you%20stupid said:Ah, yes. Let's be morons and fall for another conspiracy theory. All I said was it's a coincidence. Take what you want from it. I always think it's funny how quick people are to write off anything the MSM doesn't spew. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 12:02pm - ShadowSD ""] Let me also raise the point that the shooter only stopped killing more kids because he saw the government coming for him, and even that dumb fuck knew despite the semi-automatic weapon in his possession that a gunfight attempting to overcome the government in this day and age had a 100% chance of ending in his death and 0% chance of succeeding, so he blew his own head off first rather than take the risk. The idea that sane smart people here are debating and doubting a fact that was obvious enough to an insane deranged person - then using that very doubt as the justification for keeping his style of murder weapon legal - is making my head spin. |
| _________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 12:08pm - Burnsy ""] Yeah, government sure did a great job in saving lives that day. Good point. (SM:10) |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 12:13pm - trioxin245 ""] MAKE MORE LAWS! PLEASE! WE ARE SO UNSAFE FROM OURSELVES, PLEASE SAVE US FROM ALL THE DANGER, OH MIGHTY AND ALL-KNOWING DEMOCRACY, FOR WE CANNOT SAVE OURSELVES! |
| _______________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 12:25pm - Joe Bonanno ""] Government chill. |
| __________________________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 12:29pm - move along-nothing to see here ""] they should only take away the right to own automatic weapons then government standing armies also lose that right. ... faggots. |
| ______________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 12:29pm - barren ark ""] There is no scapegoat, nothing to blame for what happened here except the shooter. Debate it to death but there is nobody to blame here. |
| __________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 3:32pm - largefreakatzero ""] ^correct answer |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 3:33pm - arilliusbm ""] WHAT DO YOU MEAN, IT WAS BUSHMASTERS FAULT |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 3:34pm - Boozegood ""] I never said "only muskets". I said "they had access to muskets and nothing much stronger." What's the point of blockquoting what I said and then ignoring the part you quoted? Sorry for misquoting you, replace what I put in-between '' with what you actually said and it still stands. I don't know on what planet this: [img] Is "not much more powerful" than this: [img] though. Isn't that what I just said? What's not correct? You're saying gun owners opposed this right? No, you said "[...] the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment[...]" which in the context of your whole argument means just what you said. Unless it doesn't; in which case it goes against your entire argument so I assume you mean what you say. Yes, but only when 1. the terrain offers a lot of cover with mountains or jungles You mean like this: [img] [img] And this: [img] [img] 2. the counter insurgency is from foreigners unfamiliar with the terrain. Revolutionary War, Balkans, Vietnam, etc. etc. would show you are wrong. That's what makes it hard, and those don't both apply, particularly the second one. US Troops of some future tyrannical government wouldn't have much trouble in the rural plains no matter what magazines the rebels had. With the armaments and training and tanks and explosives and knowing their own country as well as any insurgents, it would be a very short uprising, unaffected in duration by the amount of bullets each gun could fire quickly or not. Whether we like it or not, our military transcended the level where we could defeat it with an insurrection decades ago, no manner how many bullets we had. This is not a comforting thing, I can agree with you there - but it has been true for some time. I think it's difficult to argue otherwise when you consider all our government's combined defense and intelligence capabilities; we only can lose wars to insurgents because we're the foreigners and they're hidden in the asscracks of terrain they know far better than us. If you think you are actually correct on this; I commend you. Many, many peer-reviewed Generals, strategists, etc. that have been published in Journals would completely disagree, though. Feel free to submit your theory to their critique. http://smallwarsjournal.com/ http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/ http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fsst20/current http://afs.sagepub.com/ http://www.pmsaronline.org/ http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss http://www.smh-hq.org/jmh/jmh.html If you succeed in convincing people that your point of view is correct I will commend you; as you have just revolutionized military/strategic thinking. I suggest you start with this bibliography: http://www.academicroom.com/bibliography/counterinsurgency-bibliography (I also suggest anyone interested in COIN warfare/military history/strategy/etc. in general check out that bibliography). |
| ___________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 3:56pm - Steve Mazzagatti ""] why dont the both of you quit your bitching, and fight already. |
| __________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:02pm - largefreakatzero ""] Those are some good links you provided, but you're never going to convince this kid of anything. He's too caught up in the emotion of the situation to think clearly on the subject. I think the NRA has been smart to keep silent in the aftermath -- there's too many screaming, emotional liberals looking to cast blame for any NRA argument to do any good. And LOL at thinking I would hand over my guns to anyone. |
| ___________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:02pm - Steve Mazzagatti ""] YOU LADIES HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT THIS CRAP FOR 2 DYA'S NOW, FIGHT ABOUT IT OR FIX YOUR PANTIES AND MOVE ON. |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:03pm - barren ark ""] I disagree with Shadow about the insurgents. The terrain is just a nice backdrop -- wars are lost against insurgents because by nature you kill one and two more fill his shoes. especially when those shoes have stayed the same for 10,000 years (Vietnam, Balkans, Afghans) the game was rigged from the start for native New-Worlders so they don't count. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:09pm - Boozegood ""] barren%20ark said: the game was rigged from the start for native New-Worlders so they don't count. Not only that but the idea of peace-loving homogenous Native Americans is some completely made-up nowadays view on the subject. Tribes were brutally killing each other long before we showed up; we were just another tribe that got thrown in the mix; albeit we were a supremely strong tribe. Thus there wasn't really a native 'insurgency' since some tribes sided with new-comers, some didn't, etc. etc. to further their own agendas. (I'm speaking about North America by the way, South American Natives are a whole other ballgame). Oh, and I am agreeing with you, in case it sounds like I'm trying to correct you or something. |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:13pm - barren ark ""] yeah, within tribes was a heavy early socialism but tribes were not at all homogenous and were not on a sustainable path (stampeding bisons off cliffs comes to mind) |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:16pm - arilliusbm ""] http://money.cnn.com/m/#!/2012/12/18/news/...assacre.json?category=Latest%20News |
| ________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:20pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] Steve%20Mazzagatti said:YOU LADIES HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT THIS CRAP FOR 2 DYA'S NOW, FIGHT ABOUT IT OR FIX YOUR PANTIES AND MOVE ON. If there are 2 DYA's, I want the other one dead. DEAD, you hear me? |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:20pm - Boozegood ""] arilliusbm said:http://money.cnn.com/m/#!/2012/12/18/news/companies/gun-sales-massacre.json?category=Latest%20News That dude needs some trigger discipline, though I am mirin' gainz. I should have bought more than a few lower receivers, bah. Sold out everywhere now and they are going to be like gold if there is another AWB (I know this to be true because I have to pay pre-ban prices here in MA already). |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:22pm - barren ark ""] My left-libertarian spirit is screaming in my ear that all the gun restrictions and laws will not prevent access to contraband weapons and will not inhibit the manufacture of them. It's funny that Jim just posted that, I was going to say that the way the gun market works, is that every time a Democrat talks about gun legislation, MORE GUNS ENTER THE MARKET AND GET INTO PEOPLE'S HANDS. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:22pm - trioxin245 ""] largefreakatzero said:He's too caught up in the emotion of the situation to think clearly on the subject. This pretty much sums up my feelings towards the whole thing for the most part. |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:22pm - barren ark ""] GUN FUTURES MARKET, GET YOURS YESTERDAY |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:25pm - Boozegood ""] barren%20ark said:My left-libertarian spirit is screaming in my ear that all the gun restrictions and laws will not prevent access to contraband weapons and will not inhibit the manufacture of them. It's funny that Jim just posted that, I was going to say that the way the gun market works, is that every time a Democrat talks about gun legislation, MORE GUNS ENTER THE MARKET AND GET INTO PEOPLE'S HANDS. Yea and then the fucking-idiots on my side of the political spectrum whine about prices. THAT'S CAPITALISM, YA KNOW, THE SHIT WE SUPPORT SO VOCALLY ALL THE TIME. |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:25pm - barren ark ""] lol |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 4:29pm - arilliusbm ""] What's funny is that if they FLAT OUT BAN GUN SALES FOR CIVILIANS (hypothetically), it would create a black market of homemade guns, which is quite easy. And you don't need no gun powder. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 5:20pm - ShadowSD ""] In the Revolutionary War, Britain knew the terrain less than the colonists, and were certainly the foreigners in that sense. In Vietnam, again, we were the foreigners dealing with insurgents, despite having some local allies. The Balkans were more of a civil war type situation than a pure government vs. insurgency scenario. Reading through the links and still looking for the argument a single man or a few men can defeat the US government in its current state, no matter what the firepower of the rebels. I'll keep looking. I also think I've tried to be pretty rational in most of the substance of the arguments I've posted (here's another one: no one ever mows down a bunch of schoolkids with a cannon), but I admit there's been a very strong undercurrent of emotion through all of it, too, I'm guilty as charged on that one. On either level, though, I don't think there's anything wrong with having someone advocating for the liberties of the children who were killed for once, not just on behalf of the ownership of the guns that killed them. Doesn't seem irrational to me. When it comes to why I've been emotional, I think this hits you way harder if you have kids in a way you don't know (and I didn't know) until you have them. For instance one Marine vet mom who has used guns for protection all her life, guarded her children with a gun close to her every night while they grew up, and once saw her father and brother killed in separate incidents by gun violence, said after this shooting she was no longer going to be a gun owner because a firearm is more likely to kill someone who lives in the home than an intruder, and because packing a gun didn't save her murdered relatives from not having a chance to react in time (she was on the news this past weekend on Chris Hayes' show); certainly, that observation and that statistic were available to her before, but the emotional impact of this shooting ironically made her more rational about accepting that data. Certainly not saying anyone else should come to the same conclusion as her, we all have the right to own a gun in our home; just pointing out how having kids, even if you've supported gun rights all your life, has caused this tragedy to change a lot of minds that never would have otherwise. I'll stop posting anything else on this issue in this thread, I've made my point. You guys made your points very well, too. This is a hard subject for anyone to change someone else's mind in a debate either way. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 5:27pm - trioxin245 ""] ShadowSD said: When it comes to why I've been emotional, I think this hits you way harder if you have kids in a way you don't know (and I didn't know) until you have them. We're aware of that, but not every American has or wants kids. Some of us just want our freedom. |
| ______________________________ [Dec 18,2012 5:30pm - BSV ""] Still can't find a connection with both father's testifying against LIBOR and how they brainwashed their sons to kill people in order for the 2nd Amendment to be revoked. That examiner link is just another link for a blog that re-blogged a rumor from Friday, same old boring theory with no details or critical thinking. There are also people trying to connect some guy in China who stabbed and slashed 22 children on the same day to these shootings as well...right, like they're connected. The clear difference in China is that it takes alot of fucking effort to kill someone with a knife, therefore he only injured the victims, unlike Lanza shooting fish in a barrel. At this point I feel it's more logical that the NRA could potentially be responsible for misinforming our country with the intention to stimulate sales out of fear, but fuck that. People treat the gov like god in the sense they just blame anything and everything they don't understand on it. Everyone is an expert researcher in our 8 second generation but no one will ever have all the answers. More than half the people bitching about guns being removed don't even own a gun and will never have the balls to join a militia. The weak shall be crushed. Only nihilistic antagonism is real. |
| ______________________________ [Dec 18,2012 5:41pm - BSV ""] and furthermore, I think there's a way better chance that video games will take a hit before guns as a direct result of these events. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 5:44pm - trioxin245 ""] BSV said: More than half the people bitching about guns being removed don't even own a gun bennyhillifier |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 5:52pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said:In the Revolutionary War, Britain knew the terrain less than the colonists, and were certainly the foreigners in that sense. Interesting theories but all research I've done and real world experience I have had does not support your idea. Those aren't the reasons that COIN is so difficult. In Vietnam, again, we were the foreigners dealing with insurgents, despite having some local allies. Ours was not the only conflict going on there. The Balkans were more of a civil war type situation than a pure government vs. insurgency scenario. Which conflict? Reading through the links and still looking for the argument a single man or a few men can defeat the US government in its current state, no matter what the firepower of the rebels. I'll keep looking. http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/full-...%80%9Cvision%E2%80%9D-of-the-future An interesting article in Small Wars Journal in that to me it in-itself supports the ideas I've been saying (about COIN being exceptionally difficult) while trying to outline a way to conduct a COIN war in America. I also think I've tried to be pretty rational in most of the substance of the arguments I've posted (here's another one: no one ever mows down a bunch of schoolkids with a cannon) Okay? That's not the point of the example though; the point of the example is that the founding fathers did in fact have very advanced/heavy/destructive weapons during their time and never once specifically stated 'citizens can't have these; only a musket. In their house.' I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard for people on your side of the spectrum to just admit they want to change the Constitution of the United States of America. , but I admit there's been a very strong undercurrent of emotion through all of it, too, I'm guilty as charged on that one. On either level, though, I don't think there's anything wrong with having someone advocating for the liberties of the children who were killed for once, not just on behalf of the ownership of the guns that killed them. Doesn't seem irrational to me. When it comes to why I've been emotional, I think this hits you way harder if you have kids in a way you don't know (and I didn't know) until you have them. For instance one Marine vet mom who has used guns for protection all her life, guarded her children with a gun close to her every night while they grew up, and once saw her father and brother killed in separate incidents by gun violence, said after this shooting she was no longer going to be a gun owner because a firearm is more likely to kill someone who lives in the home than an intruder, and because packing a gun didn't save her murdered relatives from not having a chance to react in time (she was on the news this past weekend on Chris Hayes' show); certainly, that observation and that statistic were available to her before, but the emotional impact of this shooting ironically made her more rational about accepting that data. Certainly not saying anyone else should come to the same conclusion as her, we all have the right to own a gun in our home; just pointing out how having kids, even if you've supported gun rights all your life, has caused this tragedy to change a lot of minds that never would have otherwise. I'll stop posting anything else on this issue in this thread, I've made my point. You guys made your points very well, too. This is a hard subject for anyone to change someone else's mind in a debate either way. Not much to say about this part. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 5:53pm - ShadowSD ""] BSV said:and furthermore, I think there's a way better chance that video games will take a hit Yup, I can't stand that whiny shit about banning entertainment; censorship accomplishes nothing, and a violent video game is particularly meaningless when someone already has real-life training. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:06pm - arilliusbm ""] BSV said:Still can't find a connection with both father's testifying against LIBOR and how they brainwashed their sons to kill people in order for the 2nd Amendment to be revoked. That examiner link is just another link for a blog that re-blogged a rumor from Friday, same old boring theory with no details or critical thinking. There are also people trying to connect some guy in China who stabbed and slashed 22 children on the same day to these shootings as well...right, like they're connected. The clear difference in China is that it takes alot of fucking effort to kill someone with a knife, therefore he only injured the victims, unlike Lanza shooting fish in a barrel. At this point I feel it's more logical that the NRA could potentially be responsible for misinforming our country with the intention to stimulate sales out of fear, but fuck that. People treat the gov like god in the sense they just blame anything and everything they don't understand on it. Everyone is an expert researcher in our 8 second generation but no one will ever have all the answers. More than half the people bitching about guns being removed don't even own a gun and will never have the balls to join a militia. The weak shall be crushed. Only nihilistic antagonism is real. I havent really looked into it more than that article that Rich sent me so I havent done any research. it's interesting if true, but I think it's more of the Manchurian candidate type thing, rather than the father's doing it. it appears the allusion is they were brainwashed by the governmen, kind of like Tim McVeigh and Oklahoma City. I dont really buy into it though, I think this was some jealous kid that felt his mom loved her students more than him. Either way it's sliced, it's still fucked up. It's funny though because conspiracy whacks like Alex Jones have been talking about this shit for months, and now it looks like the government will really do something about it. |
| ________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:12pm - Burnsy ""] [img] |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:21pm - arilliusbm ""] http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/berg...al-security/index.html?c=homepage-t THIS ARTICLE AND REASONING IS AWFUL. FUCK YOU CNN. the msm is the propaganda of the country, so you know something will halpen soon. |
| __________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:32pm - largefreakatzero ""] Obnoxious article, but then again CNN is the liberal answer to Fox News. Both suck. |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:35pm - Randy_Marsh ""] only cbs news crimesider is real |
| ________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:36pm - Burnsy ""] I'd say MSNBC is more the left's answer to fox news. CNN isn't far behind though. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:37pm - arilliusbm ""] Oh, you mean Rupert Murdoch vs Ted Turner? |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:37pm - Randy_Marsh ""] huff post can get pretty bad too, i like the way their site navigates though |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 19,2012 9:11am - Boozegood ""] [img] |
| __________________________________ [Dec 19,2012 9:26am - ShadowSD ""] I think I'm sticking to my vow in not arguing anymore w/people about the second amendment in this thread to just say I completely agree that article is really awful. Where he really loses it, and the worst line: "Today, we are not likely to need to organize local militias for our defense now we have something called the Pentagon." Has the guy heard of Thomas Jefferson and the need of each generation to have the right to define its own destiny? It's one thing to acknowledge the history of the second amendment as an insurance policy against government intrusion but argue we realistically *couldn't* overcome the Pentagon's intelligence, manpower, and firepower today, and entirely another for this guy to suggest that even if we could overcome it, we're 100% sure we'd never need to someday in the future; in doing so, his article pretends what the Founders were saying about the second amendment as a counterbalance to tyranny never existed, and actually diminishes his own arguments against rapid fire weapons. The guy may as well have titled his article How Not To Write An Argument For My Own Side Of The Debate: 1. raise the topic of the second amendment by talking about local militias for defense while not even acknowledging the counterbalance to tyranny and the history of that - and then in the same fucking article, 2. make a case to take guns on *national security* grounds without a clue as to the chilling impression the combination of those two factors leaves. FAIL |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 19,2012 9:57am - barren ark ""] Thomas Jefferson wrote that as a means of control to gain support for his cause. The "need of each generation to have the right to define his own destiny" were the words of a republican tyrant slandering a royal tyrant. "[King George] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." - TJ, Declaration of Independence. Strong words for a champion of liberty and justice. Anyway, second amendment will not go away and each state will interpret it as it pleases. |
| _____________________________________ [Dec 19,2012 10:04am - arilliusbm ""] Imma amend your amendment to aphend and surrend your right to fight like a knight out of fright, nilla WAT WAY TOO MUCH COFFEE THIS MORNING |
| ______________________________________ [Dec 19,2012 10:10am - barren ark ""] ShadowSD said: BSV said:and furthermore, I think there's a way better chance that video games will take a hit Yup, I can't stand that whiny shit about banning entertainment; censorship accomplishes nothing, and a violent video game is particularly meaningless when someone already has real-life training. I think the age of video game censorship has passed. Games are so ubiquitous now and so many more people know what they're about that the negative perspective toward them is sort of mitigated now. We went through this a thousand times since the 80's. Even Rush Limbaugh said the other day "I don't know much about video games but I'm sure they weren't the cause of the shooting" or something like that. Mainstream media might try to spin it around again, but hopefully people will realize that MSM sensationalizes violence for ratings as much as the most gratuitous video game does (but they probably won't) |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 19,2012 11:56am - ShadowSD ""] True, maybe we're finally beyond the days we grew up in where videogame censorship was brought up in politics, the PMRC reigned, and there were civil trials for Judas Priest and Ozzy lyrics. If so, that's def progress. |