SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> A question.......
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1519680325

Message started by raydawg on 02/26/18 at 13:25:25

Title: A question.......
Post by raydawg on 02/26/18 at 13:25:25

Re: Florida shooting.

We, and rightfully so, seem to be examining everything about this sad event.
What went wrong, etc.
The FBI, the local cops, etc.

Looking for why's, and how we might avoid such occurrences from gun control, to better awareness, etc....

I have not seen anything about this guy, the shooter, having been bullied and ostracized at school, and the community.

Shouldn't we be looking at that too?

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/26/18 at 13:56:19

Everything about the guy that I've heard would have made me steer clear of him. I don't think I would have ever bothered him.
But then I got thugged upon by the creepy kids, I didn't pick on people.
Feels like a
Chicken/Egg question kinda, though.
Who MADE him an outcast, if he was?
Not everyone is nice, even If they are treated well.
And not everyone will be decent enough for others to embrace them.

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by T And T Garage on 02/26/18 at 13:58:08

5B48504D485E4E290 wrote:

Of course. There isn't just one thing to blame. It's a multitude of things.
In this case, there was sufficient warning though. The FBI dropped the ball to some degree. He was known to be unstable. His friends knew it. His foster parents had some inkling as well. It was an all around failure to recognize and speak up about it.

Fortunately, about a week later, there was an arrest made of a similar case that was foiled by a kid's classmate who saw the signs and said something. That one kid saved more than any "good guy with a gun" ever could have.

There's no way to compartmentalize this tragedy. A lot of things went wrong to allow this to happen. Would speaking up have saved things? Maybe. Would him not having access to guns saved things? Maybe. Would the FBI acting sooner have saved things? Maybe.

Although none of these things happened, just one of them could have prevented it.

So yes - the community at large needs to be more aware of threats. Yes - we need to have stricter gun control. Yes - our law enforcement has to be better trained.

But most of all, we as a nation, have to set ourselves apart from a mentality/culture of "guns at all costs". Let's be real - the Second Amendment is outdated in it's message and intent. I'm not saying we ban all guns, but I'm also not saying everyone should have access to everything.

Yeah, yeah, "you can kill a person with a car too" - but cars aren't made with the intent of killing things in protection or hunting - guns are. Their only intent is to render harm at whatever it's pointed at. That's what we have to get past - this isn't the Wild West. We're not defending our homesteads anymore. This is the 21st century and we all need to grow up.

Long story longer - we all need to look out for each other. Step away from the computer/smartphone/video game and get back to real interaction.

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by MnSpring on 02/26/18 at 14:42:02

796768696479627F0D0 wrote:

"... Yes - we need to have stricter gun control. ..."

"... Let's be real - the Second Amendment is outdated ..."

"... We're not defending our homesteads ..."

Have some questions.
Please Outline those thoughts !

(The thoughts you have repeated, word for word,
are the words of Ultra-Liberals)

What are, YOUR, thoughts/fixes/ideas, on the 3 items above.

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by raydawg on 02/26/18 at 14:45:40

It never was homesteads, it was a safeguard against tyranny.

If we have to be disingenuous to bolster our claim, perhaps the claim is weak, too weak to stand alone on its own?

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by T And T Garage on 02/26/18 at 16:27:52

71627A67627464030 wrote:

It never was homesteads, it was a safeguard against tyranny.

Well ray - that's PART of it. But OK, I'll say that too - realistically, there's no way we could safeguard against tyranny. You honestly think that with the weaponry at our "big bad government's" disposal, a well regulated militia would stand a chance?

Live in the here and now ray. Or does my post make too much sense for you to really criticize it? Hmm?...

If we have to be disingenuous to bolster our claim, perhaps the claim is weak, too weak to stand alone on its own?

Please.... you know exactly what I mean... but then again, you might actually be that stupid....

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/26/18 at 16:53:37

When tyrants and tyranny are no more,
Then the second amendment will not be needed.
While the nature of man is not to protect others, but the desire to use, usurp, destroy, control others, we NEED the second amendment.

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by raydawg on 02/26/18 at 17:05:52

The nature of a tyrannical mindset is rooted in a paranoia of being powerless to control the outcome.

They readily see the symbolic possibility of just one single bullet, finding them as a target, ala JFK in Dallas.

They can become reclusive, like Howard Hughes, and often they create their own prison walls within the mind, Hitler being a good example.

Lots of symbolism is written into our constitution.
Like a parable, it’s value is descriptive.

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by T And T Garage on 02/26/18 at 17:37:59

57445C41445242250 wrote:

Not following your post... but... nothing new there.

But I have to say...your last paragraph is bunk. "Lots of symbolism is written into our constitution."

Symbolism?? Not even close ray!

In fact, it's exactly the opposite!

con·sti·tu·tion

känst[ch601][ch712]t(y)o[ch862]oSH([ch601])n

noun

1. a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.
synonyms: charter, social code, law; bill of rights; rules, regulations, fundamental principles
"the constitution guarantees our rights"

(if you read that "militia" is using symbolism, you're sorely mistaken.)

Now acknowledge your mistake and move on.

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by thumperclone on 02/27/18 at 04:48:05

how does the second amendment protect us against the tweety tyrant :question

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by MnSpring on 02/27/18 at 09:35:56

0A291437352E2920470 wrote:

[quote author=796768696479627F0D0 link=1519680325/0#2 date=1519682288]
"... Yes - we need to have stricter gun control. ..."
"... Let's be real - the Second Amendment is outdated ..."
"... We're not defending our homesteads ..."

Have some questions. Please Outline those thoughts !
(The thoughts you have repeated, word for word,
are the words of Ultra-Liberals)
What are, YOUR, thoughts/fixes/ideas, on the 3 items above.[/quote]They are rather vague,
What is, YOUR, POV, on how to define those vague statements. ?

- - - - - - - - - -
No stating what, YOUR, views are ?
No stating of what YOUR, POV, is ?

"... Yes - we need to have stricter gun control. ..."
Does that mean:
You want one person to not have a Firearm?
A group of people not to have a Firearm?
A Group of people not to have a group of Firearms?

"... Let’s be real - the Second Amendment is outdated ..."
Does that mean, it should no longer apply?
If that is what you mean,
Please explain, why it was written 240+ years ago
What it meant then. And why that is no longer relevant today.

"... We’re not defending our homesteads …”
This one, I find rather puzzling.
Lots of possibilities,
What are, YOURS ?

Those ’statements’ you have stated, are rather vague.
What is, YOUR, POV, on how to define those vague statements. ?

Or are those, statements [b]you made, just a regurgitation,
of what you have been, TOLD to say ?[/b]

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by MnSpring on 02/27/18 at 10:29:53

322C23222F322934460 wrote:

"... there's no way we could safeguard against tyranny. ..."

In Real Life, say, a state, stood against the Federal government.
Yea, IF, enough soldiers, would fly airplanes, and drop bombs.
That State wouldn’t stand a chance.

BUT, that, supposes, that the federal Government, would issue such a order.

Here is the KEY.
Today, no way, would the Federal Government do that.
Yet, after, Removing the 2nd, perhaps a 100 years down the road,
Can you say, N. Kora ?
Just like, a, ’No Gun Zone’, tells people,
‘Nothing to fear here, do what ever you want’.
Removal of the 2nd, will tell the Federal Government, the Same Thing !

Same as, A person in the parking lot at a supermarket,
Opens the car door, of a car just coming in or leaving,
Grabs the person, kills them, then drives away in that car.
(Absolutely NOTHING Stops them)
Until, the ‘People’, armed themselves,
and left the ‘would be killer’, Gut Shot, in the parking lot.
(It wasn’t until 10+ Years Later, car door locked automatically upon driving)
Yet that ONLY stopped the, Incoming, not the ‘jacking’ on the outgoing.
That activity was stopped by only ONE thing,
and that was the defense, by the victim.

Criminal Gang Members, have History also.
And their ‘History’, (abet Oral), says,
Very, VERY, High % of getting shot, if you Car Jack.

So their is: “…safeguard against tyranny…”
Would they be successful, in a all out war, with the US Fed Gov. ?
Probably not.
The, ’Safeguard’, is the Perception/Knowledge,
That, the Citizens, Are armed.

Title: Re: A question.......
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/27/18 at 10:35:59

If I had a grasp of history
And
I knew that the government has the people outmanned and outgunned
Then
Should I give up what meager defense I have?

Continue to deny I engage in
Critical Thinking.