Pondering......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

There are murderous idiots out there killing people, worse yet there are those who would politicize it for gain. These are legitimate threats IMO.

---

That's very true. But is it not a simplistic explanation?

Plenty of countries (presumably all countries) have murderous idiots. What I am trying to understand is *why* Americans react in their own particular way to the existence of murderous idiots. Is it that there are more of them? If there is, then that comes to my third (and IMHO most important question): why are there more of them?

Is it *just* murderous idiots? Or are there other threats (real or imagined - it frankly doesn't matter as if a threat is perceived it is real to the person doing the perceiving) beyond threat of homicide?

Hmmm, NO problems here in the states. EVERYTHING is simply BEAUTIMOUS!!

We've got the TSA shoving their hands down our pants just in case AL QUEDA decided to hitch a ride in our underwear, or granny's colostomy bag.

The PATRIOT ACT is making sure that BIG BROTHER is monitoring all of conversations and emails.

The NDAA has been passed so the military can step up to the plate if the natives get restless.

We've got folks causing problems by peacefully protesting or waving a sign within "X" number of feet from elected officials getting arrested.

Our DEARLY beloved Emperor in Chief is legislating by "executive order" and the rest of the slobs we've elected are quite happy to let him do it.

NATO has seen fit to be so kind as to run our army for us.

The nation's debt is unimaginably high, but that's OK. We've got a LOT of paper left to print more money with.

People on the "dole" nearly outnumber people that are working, but HEY, they all have a new ( or maybe 30 ) OBAMAPHONES so they can talk and text.

It's WONDERFUL here in paradise. This little tiff with regards to the 2nd Amendment is just a flash in the pan.

Nothing to see, move along. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cangooner

That's very true. But is it not a simplistic explanation?

Plenty of countries (presumably all countries) have murderous idiots. What I am trying to understand is *why* Americans react in their own particular way to the existence of murderous idiots. Is it that there are more of them? If there is, then that comes to my third (and IMHO most important question): why are there more of them?

Is it *just* murderous idiots? Or are there other threats (real or imagined - it frankly doesn't matter as if a threat is perceived it is real to the person doing the perceiving) beyond threat of homicide?

---

You have to understand that the very idea of there being more of these wacko's, even that there are more of these mass shootings is a complete Myth the homicide rate is dropping not rising.. The only thing that is rising it the reporting of these shootings...

Please go search out your own sources to my claims, as I already know you don't like stats :) really go look and learn...

I think the threat situation is most easily explained by Child Abductions...

Parents don't even let their kids go outside to play without supervision any more, why ??? the actual chance of your child being abducted is astronomical, but the Fear instilled by the media every time there is an abduction is enomous..
I don't know one person at all anywhere that has suffered a home invasion yet the fear instilled by the media is enormous everytime there is one..


That is the only explanation I have :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

It is not the first time we have had to do things like this either, and a threat is a threat, the source does not matter. It must be met. As we both seem to realize, it is a mental heath issue, an issue yet to be addressed.

As always, "The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.".

---

Yea, no doubt threats have to be met. I still think there is a big difference between outsiders trying to kill you and your own family trying to kill you. I don't know about you but I would find the later much more disturbing and heinous. Yea, I agree in this case mental health issues do appear to be part of the problem but I also think there are other contributing factors. In the end it really does not matter what I think as an outsider and it really is not my problem. I just don't like to see a neighbour having those kinds social of problems. Nobody should have to put up with that.

Bob

Now we're getting somewhere! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wullie

Hmmm, NO problems here in the states. EVERYTHING is simply BEAUTIMOUS!!

We've got the TSA shoving their hands down our pants just in case AL QUEDA decided to hitch a ride in our underwear, or granny's colostomy bag.

Well, I think everyone around the world agrees that the post-911 security arrangements for air travel are both bonkers and ineffectual. Is that what you mean or does the TSA authority extend into other areas of Americans' lives?

The PATRIOT ACT is making sure that BIG BROTHER is monitoring all of conversations and emails.

I was always frankly amazed that the Patriot Act was enacted so easily, and that more of a stink wasn't kicked up at the time (and since). Was that just the result of people not wanting to appear as though they were against something that was ostensibly against terrorists?

The NDAA has been passed so the military can step up to the plate if the natives get restless.

How much of the military budget has been turned inwards against citizens? Or is this more of a concern of what it may be used for? That portion of the budget is, shall we say, large! Is there a bona fide concern that the military would actually be used against US Citizens? I know that many folks want the budget trimmed for fiscal reasons, but is this concern part of the cause of concern over the military budget? I.e. it will grow out of all proportion and eventually be used against 'us' because we've run out of 'them' to fight?

We've got folks causing problems by peacefully protesting or waving a sign within "X" number of feet from elected officials getting arrested.

Out of curiosity it this a nation-wide issue or more locally or state-based? In other words is it a wide-spread policy decision or the over-reaction of some local official? I hadn't heard of this being an issue, but again must plead ignorance.


Our DEARLY beloved Emperor in Chief is legislating by "executive order" and the rest of the slobs we've elected are quite happy to let him do it.

(again pleading ignorance) I remember hearing of one such executive order being put in place - are there others? I believe the one I heard about had to do with children of illegal immigrants. On a constitutional note, while this is seen by some as an intolerable practice, is it in fact legal? Is he breaking the law of the land or just doing something that pisses people off?

NATO has seen fit to be so kind as to run our army for us.

In what way? As part of NATO missions, my understanding was that national forces retain their own command and control structures. If I am misinformed about this, I stand to be corrected. Has the US been dragged into conflicts by NATO that they otherwise would have avoided? Since the end of the Cold War, I think the purpose and mission of NATO needs to be reconsidered and refined, but from the outside, I can't recall ever having heard of NATO dominating or controlling US troops and resources. The accusation is in fact normally the opposite. But again, that is an outside perspective.

The nation's debt is unimaginably high, but that's OK. We've got a LOT of paper left to print more money with.

I think that's a pretty universal feeling these days, and a whole lot of folks from Italy to Greece to Ireland would say they're right in the same boat with you.

People on the "dole" nearly outnumber people that are working, but HEY, they all have a new ( or maybe 30 ) OBAMAPHONES so they can talk and text.

Seriously? A near majority of Americans are on the dole? How does one define being on the dole in America? I wonder if we have a different working definition of it up here? Here I would consider anyone receiving Employment Insurance payments (intended to get people through shorter-term periods of unemployment) or on welfare as being on the dole. Is the definition in the USA broader? And are those numbers national or for a region?

It's WONDERFUL here in paradise. This little tiff with regards to the 2nd Amendment is just a flash in the pan.

Ah, well that's good to know... :) Thanks Wullie

Nothing to see, move along. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Please go search out your own sources to my claims, as I already know you don't like stats :) really go look and learn...

---

No, I believe you! We have much the same situation up here with a so-called 'law and order' government bringing in outdated, ineffective, and Draconian measures to combat what they portray as waves of crime sweeping the nation. And all this at a time when crime is steadily decreasing.

On their part it is a purely ideological position adopted in the face of all available empirical evidence regarding both the crime rates and their proposed 'solutions'. But they have a constituency that latches on to this message of fear like a dog on a bone, and so they run with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earcutter

"According to polling data released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, public attitudes about gun control have shifted only modestly since the Newtown shootings. “Currently, 49 percent say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 42 percent say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns,” the center said. Five months ago, opinion was almost evenly divided on these questions; four years ago, a majority said they favored stricter gun control."

---

Her's an interesting tidbit the lamestream won't report;

Quote:

---

A REAL PUBLIC OPINION POLL: 8,000 PEOPLE A DAY JOIN NRA AFTER SANDY HOOK

While the media seizes on the tragedy in Connecticut to tell us that Americans have now largely turned a corner and thrown away their love for 2nd Amendment freedoms, reality tells us something completely different.

The reality is that "8,000 new members" have the joined the National Rifle Association (NRA) every day since the terrible crime at Sandy Hook Elementary School was committed.
To be clear, NRA membership always grows in the days after any incident where gun rights are called into question. But reports indicate that these numbers -- 8,000 a day -- "dwarf past trends."

Perhaps the aftermath of this incident is different because it's one in which the public has a growing knowledge that gun bans, gun-free school zones, and restrictions on law-abiding citizens have only fueled crime by providing the mentally ill and criminally-minded with helpless, soft targets that they can strike at will?

The message 8,000 new NRA members a day is sending is clear: Enough is enough. Gun control is not the answer, law-abiding citizens owning and carrying guns for their own defense is.

A Real Public Opinion Poll: 8,000 People a Day Join NRA After Sandy Hook

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cangooner

No, I believe you! We have much the same situation up here with a so-called 'law and order' government bringing in outdated, ineffective, and Draconian measures to combat what they portray as waves of crime sweeping the nation. And all this at a time when crime is steadily decreasing.

On their part it is a purely ideological position adopted in the face of all available empirical evidence regarding both the crime rates and their proposed 'solutions'. But they have a constituency that latches on to this message of fear like a dog on a bone, and so they run with it.

---

So you noticed that too, eh.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wullie

Her's an interesting tidbit the lamestream won't report;

---

Yeah but like I said before Wullie - I don't know how many people support the NRA or simply have to join. In order for me to shoot at the range here, I have to become a member of the NRA - why because they insure the range. They provide the best rates - it's a great racket.

The NRA is very good at insuring membership. That they are getting than many members doesn't surprise me at all if people are buying guns like crazy - see photo in post #17.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wullie
Hmmm, NO problems here in the states. EVERYTHING is simply BEAUTIMOUS!!

We've got the TSA shoving their hands down our pants just in case AL QUEDA decided to hitch a ride in our underwear, or granny's colostomy bag.

Well, I think everyone around the world agrees that the post-911 security arrangements for air travel are both bonkers and ineffectual. Is that what you mean or does the TSA authority extend into other areas of Americans' lives?

Yes, the TSA is operating checkpoints on highways and wants to move into malls, schools, and a number other places. They tried the buses in Houston, but that is currently on hold. The organisation has stated that it is above the law of the land and refused to attend a congressional hearing. They're out of control and routinely violate 4th Amendment rights against unlawful search.

The PATRIOT ACT is making sure that BIG BROTHER is monitoring all of conversations and emails.

I was always frankly amazed that the Patriot Act was enacted so easily, and that more of a stink wasn't kicked up at the time (and since). Was that just the result of people not wanting to appear as though they were against something that was ostensibly against terrorists?

The NDAA has been passed so the military can step up to the plate if the natives get restless.

How much of the military budget has been turned inwards against citizens? Or is this more of a concern of what it may be used for? That portion of the budget is, shall we say, large! Is there a bona fide concern that the military would actually be used against US Citizens? I know that many folks want the budget trimmed for fiscal reasons, but is this concern part of the cause of concern over the military budget? I.e. it will grow out of all proportion and eventually be used against 'us' because we've run out of 'them' to fight?

Hard to say at the moment. The US Army and FEMA are building/have built "detention/re-education camps". THe US Army is trying to hire guards for said camps. The US Army has published manuals for dealing with large numbers of detainees and political dissidents. Why?



We've got folks causing problems by peacefully protesting or waving a sign within "X" number of feet from elected officials getting arrested.

Out of curiosity it this a nation-wide issue or more locally or state-based? In other words is it a wide-spread policy decision or the over-reaction of some local official? I hadn't heard of this being an issue, but again must plead ignorance.
Federal law.

Our DEARLY beloved Emperor in Chief is legislating by "executive order" and the rest of the slobs we've elected are quite happy to let him do it.

(again pleading ignorance) I remember hearing of one such executive order being put in place - are there others? I believe the one I heard about had to do with children of illegal immigrants. On a constitutional note, while this is seen by some as an intolerable practice, is it in fact legal? Is he breaking the law of the land or just doing something that pisses people off?
It's legal but frowned upon because he is not following the orders of his government. He may act like and want to be a king, but he isn't, yet that is.

NATO has seen fit to be so kind as to run our army for us.

In what way? As part of NATO missions, my understanding was that national forces retain their own command and control structures. If I am misinformed about this, I stand to be corrected. Has the US been dragged into conflicts by NATO that they otherwise would have avoided? Since the end of the Cold War, I think the purpose and mission of NATO needs to be reconsidered and refined, but from the outside, I can't recall ever having heard of NATO dominating or controlling US troops and resources. The accusation is in fact normally the opposite. But again, that is an outside perspective.
NATO recently put our congress on notice they are running the show. Congress rolled over.

The nation's debt is unimaginably high, but that's OK. We've got a LOT of paper left to print more money with.

I think that's a pretty universal feeling these days, and a whole lot of folks from Italy to Greece to Ireland would say they're right in the same boat with you.

People on the "dole" nearly outnumber people that are working, but HEY, they all have a new ( or maybe 30 ) OBAMAPHONES so they can talk and text.

Seriously? A near majority of Americans are on the dole? How does one define being on the dole in America? I wonder if we have a different working definition of it up here? Here I would consider anyone receiving Employment Insurance payments (intended to get people through shorter-term periods of unemployment) or on welfare as being on the dole. Is the definition in the USA broader? And are those numbers national or for a region?

About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, based on data from 2010.* Not all of those people, however, are dependent on those benefits.

---

Hope this helps.