Why do we even entertain the loss of freedoms

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: ketsuko

Well you say that - but govt shuts down internet etc and tells their drone operators, air force, special forces .... that these terrorists are running amok - they respond.

How long do you think a bunch of 'well organised militia' is going to survive?

Just maybe a longer than you think because all of the assets you listed have friends and relatives or loved ones amongst the enemy contingent.....lol...wakey wakey.

a reply to: MRinder

That is not fixing the underlying problem that causes these mass shootings. We need to fix this.

a reply to: grey580

I pulled this comment from the comments section at a blog I read:

PLEASE stop calling these people crazy. They are criminal, but not crazy. As a retired detective, I can say we get weary of normal, non violent people trying to pigeon hole violent acts into what amounts to a coping mechanism. People don't want to admit that other people do bad things all the time.

For example, calling a bad FBI agent like Strzok "rogue" indicates he is a one off event. Yet, we've seen hundreds and hundreds of examples of similar "rogue agents" doctoring evidence, lying, abusing their power. We say "rogue" because it manages our vision of how things should be, not how they are. Imagine if we all just realized one day our FBI was corrupt from top to bottom and has been for along time. Then what?

Here, we have a young person committed to an act he THINKS will raise an issue that needs to be addressed. I read the manifesto. If you pulled it away from him and the attack, you would think it was some kind of article written by the eggheads at the Brookings institute!

If, IF, he wrote it by himself, the bad guy isn't stupid or crazy. In fact, he took a great deal of time to outline his positions. He even took the time to point out second generation of immigrants don't want to do the work their fathers and mothers did. Instead, they want to be educated and get skilled jobs. That's true. In fact, I read that from an old NY times or Post article. In fact, by the third generation the laziness and entitlement of the kids match the laziness and entitlement of every other kid in America.

If you read his entire list of complaints, you come away with a person who mired in hopelessness. He sees no future for his generation, not just due to Washington's inability to address immigration, but from automation and other issues that the Left keeps bringing up.

You want to know how to stop these things from happening? Stop bombarding kids, young minds, with twenty four hours a day doom and destruction mantras. From the time they hit kindergarten they are told the world is going to end. Six year olds are suffering panic attacks.

And it is all done by corrupt, power hungry politicians and advocates. Heck, the last Dem debate had one guy claim the world is doomed in twelve years, then he was upped by the next guy who claimed ten years, then Yang screams we all need to run to high ground NOW!

Imagine the hopelessness that creates in young people.

I've learned a few things over my life and from studying history. One is that if a person or a group of people think their voices have been silenced by the power to be, they will find another way to be heard. History is full of those examples. Including Gavrilo Princip, the nineteen year old anarchist and Yugoslav nationalist. He was the one who (you know what - because Disqus will flag the post) the archduke in 1914 that led to the start of WW1.

In Wilmington NC in 1898, another group decided to change the cities direction by attacking minority rule that was aligned with the Republicans. They were not crazy, and shockingly, they were actually successful, changing that city, and the state's, position on race relationships for fifty years!

So do not dismiss this El Paso outrage as being from a crazy person, he's not. He does sound filled with hopelessness and anger. (Neither was the antifa old hippie protestor turned armed terrorist in Washington two weeks ago. )

My fear is that he's not alone. Our liberal leaders (and us) have encouraged and allowed the Left to educate for twelve years a constant sense of hopelessness into our kids. Kids filled with natural anger that all kids feel when maturing. Many of those kids are not surrounded by family or faith or community, so they have no way to have those feeling filtered or counseled.

so what do we expect to happen when they grow up? We have had three in a week or so. No other connection between them except anger and frustration. We, as a nation, built these kids. Our political leaders built these kids in hopes to have political power. Our liberal media encourages violence as long as it is directed at their enemies.

Our leaders in Washington ACT OUT like these kids, refusing to address an easily solved problem, so they can act crazy themselves and accuse each other of crimes...all to get more power. (AOC is a perfect example)

So put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the bad guy for the El Paso nightmare. But keep a little for all of us for letting it get this way. And a good deal more for the childish men and women in DC who are responsible too.

Stop with the madness, as we can see it is infectious. Just fix the problem and prove we can be better. You'd be surprised how that will impact our kids.

The problem is societal. It's us, but it's not our tools. As has been pointed out already, multiple times -- the guns have always been there, but the behaviors just haven't.

a reply to: dfnj2015
The German army had way better armaments than the partisans but look at the damage the partisans did. You are wrong completely and totally. Government should never be trusted as you imply. GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. FOOL.

a reply to: ketsuko
Great post!!! Hits the nail on the head. It is true the left has controlled the schools for way to long. Parading 10 year olds in drag, and drugging our children with stimulant and antidepressants when they are simply acting like children. The left has created this mess and are pushing for more. This narrative from a police officer is dead spot on.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Because it's a hidden agenda on their part. What we need is a Jim Carey 'Liar, Liar' phenomenon or a truth ray to point at the candidates and get them to spill their real purpose.

What is it?
1. Some of them are bullies and they don't like weak-looking people or people without power to be able to argue or contest them or even be near their level. Nothing makes a big, strong bully more angry than to try and mug or strong arm a grandmother and have her pull out a 'game-leveling' device. You'll hear the bully say things like 'A GUN? Are you even allowed to have a gun?'. Sounds like a stupid thing to say but it's the one moment when you see most bullies are whiny children.

2. The Politicians are pushing an agenda - they want to be elected - PERIOD. Everything they do is geared toward that. They lie, get into office and then push their next agenda which is:

3. Elitism - the people in power don't want YOU to have a means of fighting back or being equal, so they have guns, they have bodyguards, their kids go to schools with armed guards but they do NOT want you, the common trash (in their eyes) to be on the same playing field because that makes them feel LESS SPECIAL.

I read an interview by a female cop who was OUTRAGED (at first) when she encountered a citizen who had a legal carry permit. She had changed her mind a year later and was recounting her journey to awareness - she said THAT woman was carrying a gun, and I had to go to POLICE ACADEMY to be able to carry a gun and it made me feel less special and I hated that and couldn't (at the time) admit that to myself.

4. Special Interest Groups - the politician has not platform or ideas of their own, they're bought and paid for and are greedy narcissists and just do what their lobbyists ask for, and the one who pays the most gets their voice. Lots of 'anti-gun' lobbyers? Then Politician will be anti-gun until and unless their lobby groups change and then they'll flip.

So NONE of this stuff is about you, your children, your safety, your freedom, it's all selfish, pathological, narcissistic reactions, or just looking to make more money.

We now know that DIANE FEINSTEIN actually carried a .357 handgun in her purse (in addition to having armed bodyguards) and she was one of the most vocal anti-gun people out there.

If people were serious about our children being safe, don't you think they'd have hardened the schools by now? It's been TWENTY YEARS since the Columbine shooting happened. How many schools are still unguarded gun-free zones (targets of opportunity for bad guys - no resistance)? Very few.

Look at Israel. They have hardened schools and robust TSA, and nobody hijacks their planes. They're serious and honest about it.

Spend the money on making cars safer and save 100x more lives than any attempt to confiscate, register or regulate firearms. Ask a politician why they won't do that, and you'll get strong-armed out of the room. They can't handle the Truth.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: shooterbrody

I want to hammer home the point that we need to fix an issue. Having the guns in the hands of people that are mentally unstable is a problem. If we are dead set on having weapons as a right. Then we need to do a better job of making sure that the people that have weapons are fit to have them. It's our right to own them and our right to regulate the militia that has them.

Did the el paso shooter give any indication he was mentally unstable?
So far I have not seen any info stating such.
I have seen he did not have a police record.
I am all for keeping the mentally unstable away from ANY weapons let alone guns.
So tell me how what you are proposing would have stopped the el paso shooter.
I don't think it would have.

So again Quick do something before people come to their senses. Do anything. Just do something to make people feel better.

I direct you to the Neil deGrasse Tyson tweet.
He is not a right winger.
What he tweeted makes a lot of sense.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: DBCowboy

People have freedom to go about their daily business without fear of being shot.

This seems to get lost somewhere.

Our constitution bans fear?
Really?
Would you point that out for me?

I think there are a lot of Americans on the right who feel like the left is trying to erase them. It's what the radical rightists were chanting in Charlottesville before the bloodshed:

"You will not erase us."

So outlawing their guns will just feed into that feeling. Shutting down their websites will feed into that feeling. Blocking them from twitter and facebook will feed into that feeling. calling them a basket of deplorable will feed into that feeling.

Basically, the left has done everything they can to tell young anglo males without social power that we have no respect for them. That there is no future for them in this country---even more, that no one WANTS them to have a future in this country. That they aren't needed in the tapestry of American culture.

Oh, and they should give up their guns. because they won't need them. The society that despises them will look after them, once they give up the only power they have left.

Freedom is an abstract concept in America. Our government, however, does work hard to provide the illusion of freedom. I'm not sure if any nation is more regulated than us. I welcome regulation that protects people from the misdeeds of others or clearly benefits all, but beyond that I consider it an intrusion of personal space.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I refuse to give an inch on this. Bump stocks were just a toy, so I didn't really care about that. But if trump goes for background checks on private sales, I'm done. That's a registry, folks. The hell if I'll sit idly by and let the 2a go away because it was a republican who did it.

Fortunately I think he's just pandering, knowing full well the dems will not compromise with him.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The rights made up by the left, tend to not exist in the constitution and tend to fly in the face of natural rights.

a reply to: Dfairlite

But if trump goes for background checks on private sales, I'm done. That's a registry, folks

how would that be any different than what is currently required?
private sales should not require paperwork, but retail should?
I could understand a father passing down to a son type exemption, but sales are sales are they not?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: shooterbrody

The rights made up by the left, tend to not exist in the constitution and tend to fly in the face of natural rights.

that is true with a lot of issues

a reply to: DBCowboy

Who wants to sacrifice freedom for security..?

Certainly not most people on the conservative train that's for sure..!!

Why, because they have all the security they need..

In the cabinet, in the draw beside the bed, in the back of the pickup, in the handbag, slung over the shoulder or hanging from the belt.

Around 370,000,000 of them..!!

Of those roughly 370,000,000, only around 90 (and that's probably way overstated), cause harm to innocent individuals in the hands of psycho's each year. Fair trade in my opinion for a nations security.

It's because of this particular "security", that the Japanese opted to scrap plans for a full land invasion of the US prior to Pearl Harbor.

Only people who want to be held captive and enslaved by a regime want to give up their freedom. Sounds crazy, but they are out there.. They are called Liberals..!!

In my opinion, Progressive Liberals are the biggest danger to freedom in the west. They are mostly all (and I do mean nearly all), communistic in nature with their beliefs weather they admit it or not. Some more than others and some more open about it, but the bottom line is this feud between right and left is actually at its roots, a fight between liberty/freedom and oppression/slavery.

a reply to: shooterbrody

How is it different? New sales come from a manufacturer, to a business, to a client who gets a background check. So yes, the govt knows that Timothy bought a new gun. However, once timothy sells his gun or destroys it or some other such thing happens where it is no longer in his possession, the government has no idea. Furthermore, if timothy decides to buy from a private party, the government has no idea timothy owns a gun.

So while there is a sort of registry, it is outdated and not accurate the more time goes on. Once private sales are required the government will gain an accurate registry as every time a gun changes hands, it will be reported (of course, only by law abiding citizens). The registry will later be used to confiscate guns as always happens.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The guy posted a racist anti immigrant manifesto to 8chan apparently before telling people he was probably going to die today. I'm not sure what a sign of mental instability is. But I'll be that might qualify as one.

IMHO we should be regulating high capacity weapons like we do machine guns. You want to own one? No problem. Here's the requirements. You don't pass the requirements. You can't own one. At the very least one of those requirements can be a yearly mental health check.

What do you propose?

a reply to: Dfairlite

So you dont oppose the national background check but you do oppose the private sale check?
That doesnt make sense to me.
As criminals dont fill out the background checks when buying on the black market it appears you favor the black market?

I do not like the idea of a "registry", but I do not think the "background check" is the same thing. What happens to the background check when the customer decides not to buy the gun? Or if the customer buys multiple guns?

If we want the background check to work it should apply to all sales.
As I posted before I dont think inheritances should be included. If my granpa thought I was nuts he wouldnt give me a gun.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: shooterbrody

The guy posted a racist anti immigrant manifesto to 8chan apparently before telling people he was probably going to die today. I'm not sure what a sign of mental instability is. But I'll be that might qualify as one.

IMHO we should be regulating high capacity weapons like we do machine guns. You want to own one? No problem. Here's the requirements. You don't pass the requirements. You can't own one. At the very least one of those requirements can be a yearly mental health check.

What do you propose?

did he post that? as he did not have the stones to put his name on it, I thought it was still alleged?
also wasn't it reported to be posted an hour before the attack?

What do you deem "high capacity weapons"?
Who would do the mental health check?

a reply to: shooterbrody

So you dont oppose the national background check but you do oppose the private sale check?

Not what I said. I do oppose the national background check, I'm just enough of a realist to recognize that it's never going away.

What happens to the background check when the customer decides not to buy the gun? Or if the customer buys multiple guns?

It won't be perfect, but it will be pretty close. I'd bet it's close to 95%+ that buy after going through the background check.

If we want the background check to work it should apply to all sales.

How exactly does it work? What is it accomplishing? Do felons still get guns? Yes. Do mass shootings still happen with weapons that were bought with a background check? Yes.

The idea that we need universal background checks has absolutely NOTHING to do with mass shootings. So why are they pushing that in response? Well, a registry of course. It's any little thing to chip away at your rights. Will you, the law abiding citizen, give them up because criminals did criminal things?