# Is This the Face of Hate?



## RadishRose (Jun 18, 2015)




----------



## Falcon (Jun 18, 2015)

And a funny hairdo to go along with it.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 18, 2015)

Yes.  At only 21 to be able to walk into a church and shoot multiple people simply because he didn't like their color.  THAT is hate!!!!!!


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 18, 2015)

Who I this please?


----------



## Cookie (Jun 18, 2015)

Hi Shalimar.  Check the news headlines today, should be in CBC or Vancouver Sun/province.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 18, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Who I this please?



http://news.yahoo.com/charleston-church-shooting-massacre-manhunt-live-103930165.html#


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 18, 2015)

My heart goes out to all the family who lost their loved ones due to this racist murderer.  Yes, that is the face of hate.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 18, 2015)

He's been arrested.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 18, 2015)

OMG was it this bit of a Kid who shot all those people including the Pastor in the SC church ?  Dirty little scumbag apparently sat in church at a Bible class for an hour before shooting everyone down ...I hope he gets what he deserves.

R.I.P to 9 good  folks whose  only  apparent _crime_ was to be in a place of worship.


----------



## Cookie (Jun 18, 2015)

There's not much to go on yet about the killer, however, he may be very mentally unbalanced/disturbed or has a psychiatric illness, which doesn't excuse what happened, but surely a mentally balanced person wouldn't do something like this.  He looks somewhat unhinged in the picture to me, though.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jun 18, 2015)

POS Coward!

Apparently he has a criminal record as well. His name and display of several ex pro apartheid countries flags mean his family is a recent immigrant or second generation American??? POS no matter how you look at it.

Mass shooting is bad enough but to go into a church or holy ground with unarmed civilians there for worship is as close to the ultimate act of cowardice you can get.

Condolences to family/survivors and may the victims rest in peace.


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 18, 2015)

Cookie said:


> There's not much to go on yet about the killer, however, he may be very mentally unbalanced/disturbed or has a psychiatric illness, which doesn't excuse what happened, but surely a mentally balanced person wouldn't do something like this.  He looks somewhat unhinged in the picture to me, though.



Cookie, your post reminds me once again that I believe there is something very, very wrong with too many young white American males. These mass shootings seem epidemic these recent years,...or is it just more news coverage? I feel there is a huge mental health issue among this group that causes deep hatred. I wonder if there are any recent studies.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 18, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> Cookie, your post reminds me once again that I believe there is something very, very wrong with too many young white American males. These mass shootings seem epidemic these recent years,...or is it just more news coverage? I feel there is a huge mental health issue among this group that causes deep hatred. I wonder if there are any recent studies.



Is it drug related?..is it because they have more access to viewing violent films or footage online..?


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jun 18, 2015)

This is indeed a very strange event, and a very sad one. I got the alert on my iPad right away, and was following the news reports and also the Facebook posts as the event was unfolding last night. 
Some things seem odd to me.
 For one thing, within a short time after the shootings, they were reporting that it was a 21 year old, grey sweatshirt/t-shirt/hoodie, blue jeans and Timberland boots.   
Sure enough , when they arrested him, he is 21 years old and wearing Timberland boots. Who in the world was looking at the brand of his boots while they were being shot and killed ? ? 

Another thing that is not much in the news so far, is that the woman who is the pastor at that church is also a senator for the state of South Carolina. this makes me wonder if maybe she was the actual target for some reason, and the others were shot just to make it look like a hate crime. She was one of the people killed by the shooter; so she definitely could have been targeted. 

One thing that really distresses me is the amount of facebook posts that were crying for "war" (in those words) by black people against white people.  
Just because there is a crazy person who apparently is racist; that does not mean that all white people hate all black people.  We already seem to have that being pushed here in America, and it makes the division between people even worse than it would otherwise be.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 18, 2015)

WhatInThe said:


> POS Coward!
> 
> Apparently he has a criminal record as well. His name and display of several ex pro apartheid countries flags mean his family is a recent immigrant or second generation American??? POS no matter how you look at it.
> 
> ...



 Sorry, What does POS mean?


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 18, 2015)

HFL...it could be that because he was part of the Bible study group for an hour before he started shooting that, that is how they were able to describe his apparel so well


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 18, 2015)

hollydolly said:


> Sorry, What does POS mean?



Oops I think I've worked it out..


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 18, 2015)

Happyflowerlady said:


> This is indeed a very strange event, and a very sad one. I got the alert on my iPad right away, and was following the news reports and also the Facebook posts as the event was unfolding last night.
> Some things seem odd to me.
> For one thing, within a short time after the shootings, they were reporting that it was a 21 year old, grey sweatshirt/t-shirt/hoodie, blue jeans and Timberland boots.
> Sure enough , when they arrested him, he is 21 years old and wearing Timberland boots. Who in the world was looking at the brand of his boots while they were being shot and killed ? ?
> ...



The pastor and senator was a man, not a woman.  One person in the church didn't get killed and the killer told her/him it was so she could tell people what happened and that he hated black people.  

This crime was all about racism.  It might be prosecuted as a federal hate crime.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jun 18, 2015)

Happyflowerlady said:


> This is indeed a very strange event, and a very sad one. I got the alert on my iPad right away, and was following the news reports and also the Facebook posts as the event was unfolding last night.
> Some things seem odd to me.
> For one thing, within a short time after the shootings, they were reporting that it was a 21 year old, grey sweatshirt/t-shirt/hoodie, blue jeans and Timberland boots.
> Sure enough , when they arrested him, he is 21 years old and wearing Timberland boots. Who in the world was looking at the brand of his boots while they were being shot and killed ? ?
> ...



What puzzles me more is the South African or pro apartheid focus of this shooter. He took the time to obtain or make out dated nation state flags for his jacket. He literally has a Dutch boy haircut being the Dutch instigated a lot of the apartheid territories centuries ago it makes you wonder.

Doesn't make this shooter any less of huge piece of crap. He belongs in the coward hall of fame.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jun 18, 2015)

Shooter was arrested in past for the possession cocaine, meth and LSD. In high school he was known to have done lots of pills including Xanax. So not only is he taking drugs that hype people up but drugs that affects moods and can cause illusions. Wonderful. But where did the apartheid crap come from. Not a good combination no matter how you try to sell it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sted-twice-year-drug-trespassing-charges.html

And given a gun by parent who didn't know or ignored possible signs of drug abuse??????

I see insanity defense coming unless he wants to become a political martyr.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jun 18, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> The pastor and senator was a man, not a woman.  One person in the church didn't get killed and the killer told her/him it was so she could tell people what happened and that he hated black people.
> 
> This crime was all about racism.  It might be prosecuted as a federal hate crime.



Sorry for the mixup in gender of the pastor. I just saw the name, and  "Clementa" seemed like a female name to me, and many places do have female pastors, as well as female senators. I saw pictures of him on the TV news, and realized i had made a mistake ; but by then , it was already posted. 
The news showed people being taken away in ambulances , but I have not heard if there were other people that were shot but not killed. Maybe there were only a few people there that night, if he only left one person alive to tell about it ? 
They showed the police with one person in custody last night that seemed to meet the description; but he obviously must not have been the right one, just wearing the same color outfit and in the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## jujube (Jun 18, 2015)

His father bought him the gun for a 21st birthday present.  Yep, definitely a not-so-great idea that one......give your troubled son a gun.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 18, 2015)

Happyflowerlady said:


> Sorry for the mixup in gender of the pastor. I just saw the name, and it seemed like a female name to me, and many places do have female pastors, as well as female senators. I saw pictures of him on the TV news, and realized i had made a mistake ; but by then , it was already posted.
> The news showed people being taken away in ambulances , but I have not heard if there were other people that were shot but not killed. Maybe there were only a few people there that night, if he only left one person alive to tell about it ?
> They showed the police with one person in custody last night that seemed to meet the description; but he obviously must not have been the right one, just wearing the same color outfit and in the wrong place at the wrong time.



I'd never heard the name before and wouldn't know if it was a man or a woman if I hadn't seen his photo on tv.  

I don't think it was only one person left alive, but he told one he wasn't going to shoot him/her so they could convey his message.  I also heard there was a 5 year old who played dead so was found alive.


----------



## oakapple (Jun 18, 2015)

Cookie said:


> There's not much to go on yet about the killer, however, he may be very mentally unbalanced/disturbed or has a psychiatric illness, which doesn't excuse what happened, but surely a mentally balanced person wouldn't do something like this.  He looks somewhat unhinged in the picture to me, though.


Agreed Cookie.Who knows how he was brought up as well as all the other points that you mention?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 18, 2015)

Cookie said:


> There's not much to go on yet about the killer, however, he may be very mentally unbalanced/disturbed or has a psychiatric illness, which doesn't excuse what happened, but surely a mentally balanced person wouldn't do something like this.  He looks somewhat unhinged in the picture to me, though.



His weapon is reported to be a birthday present from his father. It will be interesting to see what the family background is.



> Just because there is a crazy person who apparently is racist; that does not mean that all white people hate all black people.  We already seem to have that being pushed here in America, and it makes the division between people even worse than it would otherwise be.



Reports indicate that South Carolina has numerous white supremacist groups, including KKK. I don't think this is just a  case of one crazy person. More like a case of the straw that breaks the back of the camel. Outrage can be cumulative.


----------



## Glinda (Jun 18, 2015)

This is so disgusting.  I wish his father could be tried as an accessory for giving a gun to this clearly deranged idiot.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 18, 2015)

I've been reading about this church in the Wall Street Journal. It is so sad to read some of the history.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/pastors-say-black-churches-need-to-review-security-1434675933

We lock our church building when it is empty because we've had our sound equipment stolen in the past. We would never consider having the doors locked when we are inside praying, holding a meeting or a church service. It is unthinkable, but the idea of having armed guards present is even worse.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 18, 2015)

The nine people who died; a state senator and pastor, 41; a librarian, 54; a speech therapist and althletics coach, mother of 3, 45; a business admin graduate, 26; a grandmother, 70; church member, 87; chorister and mother of 4, 49; a minister of the church, 74, a minister's wife, 59. Hard to imagine that any of them were bad people. Hate must be very blind indeed.



> *The Rev. Clementa Pinckney, 41:* A state senator and the senior pastor of Emanuel, he was married to Jennifer Benjamin and the father of two children, Eliana and Malana. He was a 1995 graduate of Allen University and got his master's degree at the University of South Carolina in 1999. He served in the state Legislature starting in 2000; The Post and Courier says black fabric was draped over Pinckney's Senate chamber seat on Thursday.
> 
> *Cynthia Hurd, 54: *According to the Charleston County Public Library, she was a 31-year employee who managed the John L. Dart Library for 21 years before heading the St. Andrews Regional Library. A statement said Hurd "dedicated her life to serving and improving the lives of others." The system closed its 16 branches Thursday to honor Hurd and the others who died in the shooting. County officials also say the St. Andrews library will be named for Hurd.
> 
> ...



I heard on the news that this is the 14th time that President Obama has had to front the media after a mass shooting. Tragedy piled upon tragedy.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 18, 2015)

President Obama's words

“To say our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families doesn’t say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel,” Obama said. “Any death of this sort is a tragedy, any shooting involving multiple victims is a tragedy. There is something particularly heartbreaking about death happening in a place in which we seek solace, and we seek peace, in a place of worship.”

Obama said Emanuel is “more than a church, this is a place of worship that was founded by African-Americans seeking liberty. This is a church that was burned to the ground because its worshippers worked to end slavery.”

And the fact that it’s a black church, Obama said, “obviously also raises questions about a dark part of our history,” 

“This is not the first time that black churches have been attacked. And we know that hatred across races and faiths pose a particular threat to our democracy and our ideals,” he said.

But Obama said the show of unity across Charleston in the wake of the shooting “indicates the degree to which those old vestiges of hatred can be overcome,” and invoked the word of Martin Luther King Jr. after the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing that killed four young girls in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963.
Still, his strongest comments were in regard to the need to address the issue of gun violence in America.

“It is in our power to do something about it,” Obama said. “I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. At some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.”

Video here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ce-doesnt-happen-in-other-advanced-countries/ although McAfee has blocked some content on this site.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 19, 2015)

This has been a leading story on the news here in the UK, so we heard Obama's speech as well.  This monster must have been raised by racist parents and I wouldn't be surprised if his dad was a member of a white supremacist group.  I've always had the impression that SC had a LOT of racism, don't know if it's more than other states?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 19, 2015)

Race is still the Achilles heel of the U.S....


----------



## WhatInThe (Jun 19, 2015)

Ironic that with in 24 hours of this drug addicted racist committing these horrible murders that Texas executed a murderer that beat a mechanic to death while on a crack binge.

http://keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/texas-executes-man-slaying-mechanic-26524.shtml

http://www.examiner.com/article/charleston-church-shooter-had-history-of-arrests-and-drug-use

This should be church shooter's fate as well.


----------



## BobF (Jun 19, 2015)

One big objection to this remove our guns argument.    It is not the guns problem, it is in our nations temperament that is our problem all the time.    We constantly hear that we must remove the guns to end the problem.   One very good example that guns do not cause the problem is the Swiss that give guns to their people and they keep them at home and walk around and ride the buses with no problems that most of us ever hear of.   It is not the guns, it is our countries mentality about things.

Look to other countries where killing is OK and mostly it is not guns that are the problem, instead it becomes the knife that is mostly used to behead those you don't like.   They also have lots of guns, but the knife seems to be there choice for personal reasons.

One person I saw on TV last night, not sure but I believe one of Martin Luther Kings family, that was saying it was not the guns to attack.    I did not hear all her comments but I am sure she was pointing to mind sets rather than just a gun.

They got the killer and he should be fully charged and penalized.    He has just admitted it all to the police and possibly to the courts as well.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jun 19, 2015)

I'd just like to commend the victim's families and the people of Charleston, they've reacted in a kind and forgiving way to a deplorable act and even though the shooter admitted he was trying to start a race war....they are setting an example that hate will not win.

This is an article I ran across, that pretty well says it all for me.....

[h=1]New Yorker: Charleston and the Age of Obama[/h]http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/charleston-and-the-age-of-obama 

No small part of our outrage and grief—particularly the outrage and grief of African-Americans—is the way the Charleston murders are part of a larger picture of American life, in which black men and women, going about their day-to-day lives, have so little confidence in their own safety. One appalling event after another reinforces the sense that the country’s political and law-enforcement institutions do not extend themselves as completely or as fairly as they do for whites. In Charleston, the killer seemed intent on maximizing both the bloodshed and the symbolism that is attached to the act; the murder took place in a spiritual refuge, supposedly the safest of places. It was as if the killer wanted to underline the vulnerability of his victims, to emphasize their exposure and the racist nature of this act of terror. 


Watching Obama deliver his statement Thursday about the Charleston murders, you couldn’t help but sense how submerged his emotions were, how, yet again, he was forced to slow down his own speech, careful not to utter a phrase that would, God forbid, lead him to lose his equanimity. I thought of that sentence of James Baldwin’s: “To be a ***** in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in rage almost all of the time.” Obama’s statement also made me think of “Between the World and Me,” an extraordinary forthcoming book by Ta-Nehisi Coates, in which he writes an impassioned letter to his teen-age son—a letter both loving and full of a parent’s dread—counselling him on the history of American violence against the black body, the young African-American’s extreme vulnerability to wrongful arrest, police violence, and disproportionate incarceration. 

Obama never affords himself the kind of raw honesty that you hear in the writings of Baldwin and Coates—or of Jelani Cobb and Claudia Rankine and so many others. Obama has a different job; he has different parameters. But, for all of his Presidential restraint, you could read the sadness, the anger, and the caution in his face as he stood at the podium; you could hear it in what he had to say. “I’ve had to make statements like this too many times,” he said. It was as if he could barely believe that he yet again had to find some language to do justice to this kind of violence. It seemed that he went further than usual. Above all, he insisted that mass killings, like the one in Charleston, are, in no small measure, political. This is the crucial point. These murders were not random or merely tragic; they were pointedly racist; they were political. Obama made it clear that the cynical actions of so many politicians—their refusal to cross the N.R.A. and enact strict gun laws, their unwillingness to combat racism in any way that puts votes at risk—have bloody consequences. 


“We don’t have all the facts,” he said, “but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. … At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.” On race and politics, he was more subtle, but not stinting, either, lamenting the event’s connection to “a dark part of our history,” to events like the Birmingham church bombing, in 1963.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 19, 2015)




----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> View attachment 18762



Yep.  Disgraceful.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 19, 2015)

Yes... and when I shared this pic on FB I had two White friends that were upset and accused me of "fanning the flames"    My response was that this is something to be embarrassed about... and their remarks proved to me that they were..   I know I am.  
"


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 19, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yes... and when I shared this pic on FB I had two White friends that were upset and accused me of "fanning the flames"    My response was that this is something to be embarrassed about... and their remarks proved to me that they were..   I know I am.
> "



It is a total embarrassment.


----------



## BobF (Jun 19, 2015)

I agree there is a difference in how the police reacted.    One quietly stood for arrest and the other attempted to avoid arrest.   I don't think color was the difference at all.   All who resist arrest end up being man handled and pushed around.

Good message but a poor choice of pictures for your message.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 19, 2015)

BobF said:


> I agree there is a difference in how the police reacted.    One quietly stood for arrest and the other attempted to avoid arrest.   I don't think color was the difference at all.   All who resist arrest end up being man handled and pushed around.
> 
> Good message but a poor choice of pictures for your message.



Sorry,...  wrong Bob...   If you cannot breathe and are trying to break away in order to breathe... Is that resisting arrest?    The point is.. this  Roof was not wrestled to the ground and suffocated..


----------



## BobF (Jun 19, 2015)

Are you convinced he was not resisting arrest before being tackled and put to the ground?   Usually no heavy handed stuff if you are obeying from the beginning.   Running, backing away, refusing to answer questions, resisting the officers in anyway is justification for officers to become aggressive.

I was not there but I am sure there was no aggression on a normal stop situation.


----------



## tnthomas (Jun 19, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> This has been a leading story on the news here in the UK, so we heard Obama's speech as well.  This monster must have been raised by racist parents and I wouldn't be surprised if his dad was a member of a white supremacist group.  I've always had the impression that SC had a LOT of racism, don't know if it's more than other states?



I don't know, but SC is one of two states(VA being the other) where I've met racial hatred firsthand because of public interracial appearances.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 19, 2015)

The toughest thing that Jesus asked of his followers is to forgive your enemies, to do good to them that do evil towards you.
It is rarely seen because most of us have an old testament heart, one that seeks retribution and revenge.

Methodism began in England with the Wesleys and was essentially a holiness movement. It was seen as pretty extreme and unorthodox in that time but later became more like other protestant denominations.

As a holiness movement members were urged to read the bible and pray diligently, to preach the gospel to the populace and take seriously the call to care for people, even prisoners in gaol. Forgiveness and love were upheld as among the most important values that must be translated into action.

The response of the heartbroken families of the people who were gunned down without mercy is a modern manifestation of the Christian ideal. It's not the first time I have seen it but I am always amazed by this response. It is the very core of Christianity but it is  a very rare thing.


----------



## charlotta (Jun 19, 2015)

There are so many people  in the U.S that are full of hatred and many are mentally ill.  My heart is saddened that this could happen in a Church and he sat and listened to the service.  If he isn't mentally ill, he must have learned this hatred from a person whom he admired.


----------



## Don M. (Jun 19, 2015)

It seems that when one of these mass shootings take place, there is usually One Common Denominator....the shooter has had a fairly long history of Mental Issues.  Mental Health treatment, in this nation, seems to have almost disappeared.  The number of mental institutions has declined to almost nothing in the past several decades, and if a person does go in for treatment, they are given a prescription for some mind numbing drugs...which most probably fail to take...and turned back onto the streets.  It's almost a miracle that we don't have more of these incidents.  There certainly needs to be better measures put in place to keep weapons out of the hands of these people....but labeling someone as being Mentally Ill has become almost Totally "Politically Incorrect".   It's real easy to blame "Guns"...but that is, IMO, failing to address the Real Issue.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 19, 2015)

IMO Don, both are issues that need consideration and action.


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 19, 2015)

This is not only about senseless murder of blacks and hatred. As I have tried to open, this is also very much about the strangeness and mentally ill issues young American men seem to have developed or at least exhibited in recent years. 

This particular crime is about intolerance regarding race, yes; another in a tragic, long list.

There is more that the US needs to address, which is to me, the rapid decline of mental health and/or feelings of hatred so prevalent in our young men today.

I saw a partial list online of mass murders; massacres over the past 20 I think, years. The list left out a lot!  And it's not even about guns per se.

Am I alone thinking there is something different, something epidemic going on here? Don you seem to think so too.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 19, 2015)

What do you see happening in other advanced western countries RR?
Is it more pronounced in young American men than elsewhere?

Or is it that every social problem, crime, racism, domestic violence, mental illness etc is made worse by easy access to firearms?


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 20, 2015)

I don't know the answers but as Obama said, this kind of thing does not happen in other industrialised countries, or at least it's very rare.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 20, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> I don't know, but SC is one of two states(VA being the other) where I've met racial hatred firsthand *because of public interracial appearances*.



Sorry TN, could you explain the Bold more clearly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

I agree with DW...  I don't think American youth is any more angry.. or more mentally imbalanced than in other countries, but I don't have statistics to back that up..  What IS different is that our crazy and angry people can get guns... any kind they want and as many as they want.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 20, 2015)

I agree QS the Gun thing has to be at the root of the problem. How could it not be? ( rhetoric question)...that isn't to say that Guns are unavailable here or any other country, we all know they are, however in this country Guns are not readily available by anyone to buy or use to unless you are first vetted by the police and then cleared to be issued with a Firearms certificate. No-one, apart from the Police (and then only in exceptional circumstances) and some farmers (on their own land) are permitted to carry a gun around on their person..unless at a shooting range for sport , where they're kept locked in Gun safes.  

Of course guns can and are bought and sold on the black market and we do occasionally have  serious gun crime committed here,  sometimes committed by mentally unhinged folk who are licences to own guns ..but if you read this link you'll get the size of it... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

But this kind of thing does not happen in Switzerland and they all have guns and given to them by the government.   They then get to keep them when the military terms is ended if they wish.   I say there is something in their training that helps them to keep the purpose and use of guns as something OK and fun too do.   The rest of the world doesn't seem to have that knowledge and ability.   This person was a troubled person from early in his life.   When his father gave him the gun it was the item missing from his hands.   Maybe SC needs to review it's rules on gun ownership and the owners mind sets.   We should not be putting such weapons into the hands of mental persons.

IT IS NOT THE GUN THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM.   It was the person that held the gun.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

BUT.... without the gun... a person would have a VERY difficult time shooting 9 people dead.    ALSO


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 20, 2015)

Exactly Quicksilver. Guns have only one purpose, to kill something. 
The owner of the gun has the power of life and death over others.
It is a power that should not be in the hands of everyone.

On the subject of the church shooter, it may be premature to judge the father. 
One report I have read says that the boy used birthday money given to him to buy the gun.


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

A large part of the guns in the US are held by unregistered persons that are involved in criminal activities.   Registering the guns is only for the folks that do agree with such and they do register and keep at home in protected ways.   It is the unregistered guns, many many unregistered guns that need to be watched and stopped some way.    Our current methods do nothing to end the criminal minded folks from having guns.

Nobody seems to accept that in Switzerland they have government provided guns, guns are carried all over town, on public transportation, walking and in hand.    Switzerland seems to have little if any problems with guns.   Maybe we should spend more time studying Switzerlands success with personal guns and try to follow their lead.   The US way of trying to block guns does not seem to work well at all.   That all goes into the mind set of the people.   Criminals do not care.   Mentally ill do not care.   Sound minded folks do care and are following the rules.   Just having rules that the honest and caring folks agree with is not the solution when the criminals and mental illness folks don't care at all.   

I know, punish them all, especially the good, as the bad ones don't care one bit.

Also, Australia does have guns among its people.   Many folks did turn in their guns but many folks have registered and can have their weapons for various reasons from usage to collecting.


----------



## oakapple (Jun 20, 2015)

Bob, I have visited Switzerland many times and have never seen anyone carrying a gun.It is true however, that many country people there have guns, and with military training for younger people, guns are in homes, which has caused a lot of deaths and injuries in domestic rows.You are right though, in that there seem to be no or little mass shootings.


----------



## oakapple (Jun 20, 2015)

However, consider that the U.S. is a vast country and that guns are available to more or less everyone, and there you have the answer.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

I always laugh at the tired argument that if you limit accessibility to guns only the criminals will have guns.   By that logic we should eliminate ALL laws, because the criminal element will break them anyway..   well DUUUUHHHH.....   THAT's why we call them criminals.


----------



## oakapple (Jun 20, 2015)

Agreed QS


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

oakapple said:


> Bob, I have visited Switzerland many times and have never seen anyone carrying a gun.It is true however, that many country people there have guns, and with military training for younger people, guns are in homes, which has caused a lot of deaths and injuries in domestic rows.You are right though, in that there seem to be no or little mass shootings.



Here are a couple links from my saved articles I have collected over time as I continue to argue for sane and sensible gun registrations over this takeover and eliminate from the honest citizens and no controls over the criminals and mental ill who are really the problems.    Apparently you never visited Switzerland during any of their gun shoot days.
.................................

  [FONT=&quot]http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]Guns, Crime, and the Swiss[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]<Clip>[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]Actually, for those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or by train, you see shooting ranges all over the country, but only a few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking, and taking the tram with rifles over the shoulder, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye (in the U.S. a SWAT Team might do you in).[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is really just the national sport, although it has the deadly serious function of being the backbone of the national defense.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]<Clip>[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]When the first U.S. Congress met and turned to defense measures in 1791, Representative Jackson argued: "The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords." A law was passed requiring every able-bodied citizen to provide himself with a firearm and enroll in the militia, and it stayed on the books for over a century.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot].......................................[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]http://pages.prodigy.net/vanhooser/the_swiss_and_their_guns.htm[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]The Swiss and their Guns[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]By David B. Kopel and Stephen D'Andrilli[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]( American Rifleman February 1990 )[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]"What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership."[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]In the right to bear arms debate, pro-gun Americans point to Switzerland, where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. Therefore, argue the pro-gunners, America doesn't need gun control.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]Yet Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), in its brochure "Handgun Facts," points to Switzerland as one of the advanced nations with strict handgun laws." The brochure states that all guns are registered, and handgun purchases require a background check and a permit. Gun crime in Switzerland is virtually non-existent. Therefore, concludes Handgun Control, America needs strict gun control.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]Who's right? As usual, Handgun Control is wrong, but that doesn't necessarily make the pro-gun side right. Gun ownership in Switzerland defies the simple categories of the American gun debate. [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]Like America, Switzerland won its independence in a revolutionary war fought by an armed citizenry. In 1291, several cantons (states) began a war of national liberation against Austria's Hapsburg Empire. In legend, the revolution was precipitated by William Tell, although there is no definitive proof of his existence.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]Over the next century, the Swiss militia liberated most Switzerland from the Austrians. The ordinary citizens who composed the militia used the deadliest assault weapons the time, swords and bows. Crucial to the Swiss victory was the motivation of the free Swiss troops. [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]<Clip>[/FONT]


----------



## Don M. (Jun 20, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I don't know the answers but as Obama said, this kind of thing does not happen in other industrialised countries, or at least it's very rare.



There are lunatics running loose all over the globe.  During the Norway Massacre, 3 or 4 years ago, that lunatic killed 77 people...and this in a nation with Strict gun laws.  I think that is an all time record for this kind of incident.  Then, a couple of years ago, there was an attack by some extremists at a Chinese rail station where about 35 people were hacked to death with knives, and many others severely injured.  Then, consider what these ISIS nutcases have done in just the past year...thousands killed.  

I am convinced that about 10% of the human population is comprised of individuals who are just one small step from committing an atrocity.  How to cope with, and control them is the $64,000 question.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 20, 2015)

Don M. said:


> There are lunatics running loose all over the globe.  During the Norway Massacre, 3 or 4 years ago, that lunatic killed 77 people...and this in a nation with Strict gun laws.  I think that is an all time record for this kind of incident.  Then, a couple of years ago, there was an attack by some extremists at a Chinese rail station where about 35 people were hacked to death with knives, and many others severely injured.  Then, consider what these ISIS nutcases have done in just the past year...thousands killed.
> 
> I am convinced that about 10% of the human population is comprised of individuals who are just one small step from committing an atrocity.  How to cope with, and control them is the $64,000 question.



You can count the mass murders with guns on maybe two hands.  That's it.  Scotland had one - 1996.  Hasn't had another.  They got very strict gun laws after that.  You can hardly lump ISIS into the same category of these kinds of mass murders - most done with guns obtained legally.

It happens so often in the US I'm not even surprised any more.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

Don M. said:


> I am convinced that about 10% of the human population is comprised of individuals who are just one small step from committing an atrocity.  How to cope with, and control them is the $64,000 question.



Limiting their access to firearms might be a start.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jun 20, 2015)

Article on Suboxone which the shooter was caught in possession of without a prescription less than 6 months ago.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charleston-shooting-suspect-dylann-roof-drug-suboxone/

The question is was he trying to come off something or more than likely using to get high. Any article I've read on it so far says it seems to work well as opiate replacement for something like herion or as pointed out "middle class methadone". But all articles say as long as it's used what it's ment for under medical supervision.

I saw where the shooter said they almost talked him out of it. And it took him 6 months of planning???- Part of plan and he was the only one to go through with it? OR (NOT making excuses because he is an obvious hatred filled racist) but there might have been some ambivalence before  the act from mood swings caused by the drug abuse. On the other hand maybe years of drug abuse post phoned the inevitable. Which leads to the father.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tective-follow-split-claims-court-papers.html

This can't be a good thing.


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Limiting their access to firearms might be a start.



In the US that requires a Constitutional amendment to make it possible.    So far not enough votes to even get that started.   It would take a bit of time and up to some minimum number of states would have to agree to any change proposed.   So glad we have a restricted Constitution and ways to change it.   Over 200 years now with only a few changes to the Constitution.   For stability for the nation that is the way it should be.   A good solid document that can not just be changed by some arbitrary government decisions.

Only when they find ways to make the unregistered guns the outlaws seem to have no trouble getting hard to impossible to get, then maybe some good will happen.   They get a gun, rob a store or two, maybe shoot some folks or police, then get a few short years in jail.   Pretty sad and not much ado about them and their 'illegal' guns.   These illegal guns are in use every day and over time they do a lot of damage.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> In the US that requires a Constitutional amendment to make it possible.    So far not enough votes to even get that started.   It would take a bit of time and up to some minimum number of states would have to agree to any change proposed.   So glad we have a restricted Constitution and ways to change it.   Over 200 years now with only a few changes to the Constitution.   For stability for the nation that is the way it should be.   A good solid document that can not just be changed by some arbitrary government decisions.
> 
> Only when they find ways to make the unregistered guns the outlaws seem to have no trouble getting hard to impossible to get, then maybe some good will happen.   They get a gun, rob a store or two, maybe shoot some folks or police, then get a few short years in jail.   Pretty sad and not much ado about them and their 'illegal' guns.   These illegal guns are in use every day and over time they do a lot of damage.




So... what is YOUR solution to stop these massacres from continuing?  How would you suggest we stop crazy people from getting guns if we do not limit the availability of guns?


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So... what is YOUR solution to stop these massacres from continuing?  How would you suggest we stop crazy people from getting guns if we do not limit the availability of guns?



And that was my point.   All kinds of efforts to stop legal guns and usage but not much at all about ending the presence of illegal weapons of all types.   Wrong group of folks to challenge while letting the criminal types and their choices of weapons pretty much alone.   And also the limiting of knowledge of mental problems in the US to only related medical folks.   There must be a way for that knowledge to be available to gun registration folks.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> And that was my point.   All kinds of efforts to stop legal guns and usage but not much at all about ending the presence of illegal weapons of all types.   Wrong group of folks to challenge while letting the criminal types and their choices of weapons pretty much alone.   And also the limiting of knowledge of mental problems in the US to only related medical folks.   There must be a way for that knowledge to be available to gun registration folks.




So again, are you saying you are in favor of universal gun registration and background checks for every gun purchase?  Are you in favor of banning assault weapons and large volume clips?


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

You seem to be trying to put your words into my postings.   Not at all what I am saying.

In order to keep adding restriction to legal ownership is not going after the illegal and criminal types and their sources at all.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 20, 2015)

Effectively, Bob, you have no answer, no solutions. 
All you are offering are road blocks to people who want to do something about the carnage.

A constitution, even the Constitution of the United States, is just a legal document drawn up to regulate the operations of a government or other organisation. Where/when the document becomes out of date there is always a mechanism for modifying it. In fact, the second amendment is just one of these modifications. Amendments can also be rescinded when they prove to be counter productive. Prohibition is one example of such an amendment.

Looking from the outside I think that the time has come for the people of America to tackle the problems caused by the second amendment and the way it has been interpreted by the constitutional courts. Obstacles to dealing with the problems need to be identified and dealt with one by one. There is no simple solution but if the people will it, it can happen. You have a democracy when all is said and done.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> You seem to be trying to put your words into my postings.   Not at all what I am saying.
> 
> In order to keep adding restriction to legal ownership is not going after the illegal and criminal types and their sources at all.



So then what is your solution to prevent criminals or the insane from getting access to guns??????


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 20, 2015)

Bob, I have found something that is pertinent to you argument about Switzerland and gun ownership.



> Proponents of unfettered gun ownership often point to the example of Switzerland, which has a tradition of more widespread firearms ownership than most other European countries but is not known for its gun-ravaged inner cities.
> Advertisement
> 
> 
> ...



I found this piece of information in a longer article that might be of interest to some.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...th-carolina-shooting-gun-control-reform-myths


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

This is the round robbin we face hear DW...   2nd amendment folks do NOT want any regulation, or control over who gets guns or what kind of guns can be owned... yet complain the the criminal element and "illegal" gun ownership must be stopped..  Typical... and pointless


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

To all of you there is a way to get the Constitution changed.   I mentioned that a couple posts back and really wonder how some consider my thoughts to be wrong.   To change the Constitution takes an initiative from Congress to do so.   It takes debates and such to try to decide which part of the Constitution needs revisions or deleted.   Once that part is done the effort gets sent to the states for review and voting.   There is a minimum number of states that must agree with the revised Constitution or it will never happen.    It is a good law and it is intended to stop radical ones from just ignoring the Constitution and jerking our constructions and controls of laws for stability.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses  shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,  or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several  States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in  either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this  Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the  several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one  or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;  Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One  thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first  and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that  no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage  in the Senate.
...........................

So if folks really want to change the 2nd Amendment, they need to get their state active and start making something happen.   Sooner the better if it is such a big issue as some are trying to make this matter.
...........................
*Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)*

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
..........................
I am sure happy that we do have these abilities and protections built into our Constitution so we don't end up with some really one sided and distorted setup that is only fair to some politicians and that means unfair to the voters.


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> This is the round robbin we face hear DW...   2nd amendment folks do NOT want any regulation, or control over who gets guns or what kind of guns can be owned... yet complain the the criminal element and "illegal" gun ownership must be stopped..  Typical... and pointless



Your comment is entirely wrong.   Just follow the rules I posted above and something will happen, for or against the anti gun stuff.


----------



## BobF (Jun 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So then what is your solution to prevent criminals or the insane from getting access to guns??????



Not sure just what can be done or should be done.   That is something that us little folks have little power to change.   Contact our Congress people and tell them how we would like it done.   All this finger pointing and screaming will never get anything done at all.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 20, 2015)

Don M. said:


> It seems that when one of these mass shootings take place, there is usually One Common Denominator....the shooter has had a fairly long history of Mental Issues.  Mental Health treatment, in this nation, seems to have almost disappeared.  The number of mental institutions has declined to almost nothing in the past several decades, and if a person does go in for treatment, they are given a prescription for some mind numbing drugs...which most probably fail to take...and turned back onto the streets.  It's almost a miracle that we don't have more of these incidents.  There certainly needs to be better measures put in place to keep weapons out of the hands of these people....but labeling someone as being Mentally Ill has become almost Totally "Politically Incorrect".   It's real easy to blame "Guns"...but that is, IMO, failing to address the Real Issue.



I agree Don, and have posted a listing of murderers here in the past who were all under the influence of prescription drugs for depression or anxiety.  These drugs have side effects of both suicidal and homicidal tendencies.  They said this killer was a pill popper, and had been using Xanax and Soboxone.  James Holmes who is on trial now for mass murder was taking Zoloft and Clonazepam, the list is extensive, but greatly ignored.  Until this is addressed, these crimes will continue. I don't know if it's true for this particular case, but doctors are too lax in prescribing these mind altering drugs, they are conditioned to push the pharmaceuticals and this has been starting in grade school.

  There's plenty of illegal guns in the hands of gangs and criminals on the streets, if his father didn't give him one, he could easily get an illegal one off the streets.  The political talk following one of these tragedies is always the same, remove guns from the law abiding citizens or make it harder for them to have them.  I feel very bad for all the victims and their families and don't want to argue politics.  This kid was obviously a racist with mental issues, too many of those around.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 20, 2015)

Why change the constitution when sensible gun regulations and universal background checks, as well as a ban on assault weapons and large volume magazines  would be simpler.. Just needs to be passed by Congress.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 20, 2015)

Sounds like a plan QS but what happens when one or more states decide to appeal to the High (Supreme?) Court for a constitutional ruling and it is deemed to be unconstitutional with regard to the second amendment? 

It would be better to rescind or at least replace the second amendment with a more appropriate wording for the 21 century and beyond. The Congress can get on with the job of making the people a lot safer. Just my opinion, of course, and humbly given because I am looking on from the outside.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jun 20, 2015)

Whether the shooter is under the influence of drugs, mentally ill, a muslim, a long wolf, a racist, a terrorist, black or white......makes no difference.....it is the readily availability of guns in this country that is the problem.


----------



## tnthomas (Jun 20, 2015)

hollydolly said:


> Sorry TN, could you explain the Bold more clearly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean



Being in public as an interracial couple generated hate responses from people there _in public_ who objected to "mixing of the races".     Human behavior at it's ugliest...


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 21, 2015)

No offense to you or your opinion, but IMHO nothing that is done to or with the Second Amendment wording will affect what the bad guys do with guns or how they get them.  It would only affect us law abiding gun owners.  The bad guys don't give a hoot about what the law says, and that's the problem.


----------



## hollydolly (Jun 21, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Being in public as an interracial couple generated hate responses from people there _in public_ who objected to "mixing of the races".     Human behavior at it's ugliest...



Thank you Tn..


----------



## BobF (Jun 21, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> No offense to you or your opinion, but IMHO nothing that is done to or with the Second Amendment wording will affect what the bad guys do with guns or how they get them.  It would only affect us law abiding gun owners.  The bad guys don't give a hoot about what the law says, and that's the problem.



Thank you.

One thing I did not make clear in my many efforts to end the 2nd Amendment comments.    The crazed or criminal types just don't care what the 2nd Amendment says.   They just want to harm some folks and guns registered or not will do the job.   Something more must be done to end those wild efforts and the use of any weapons that may be available.   Guns, knives, explosives are all being used to harm others.   Some how we need to end these threats.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 21, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> No offense to you or your opinion, but IMHO nothing that is done to or with the Second Amendment wording will affect what the bad guys do with guns or how they get them.  It would only affect us law abiding gun owners.  The bad guys don't give a hoot about what the law says, and that's the problem.



Why not do away with ALL laws then?   Only the law abiding citizens follow them anyway.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/rebu...biding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/




> The statement that “criminals do not follow laws” is true for the same reason it’s completely irrelevant to a substantive discussion on gun reform– it’s a tautology. It says exactly nothing about the proper course of action a society should take to improve social outcomes.





> Definitionally, criminals don’t follow laws. This is no more a meaningful statement about social realities than the observation that dogs bark or cats meow, so it is baffling that gun proponents view this as an acceptable rejoinder in political debate.
> 
> Though it may seem like such an obvious point may not need mentioning, it has become increasingly popular among those who oppose gun reform to argue that such legislation only hurts law-abiding citizens, making it more difficult for innocent civilians to get the guns they need to defend themselves. Criminals, after all, don’t obey the laws that burden law-abiding citizens._ I will term this position the lawbreaker paradox—a paradox because it axiomatically reinforces the idea that laws, though created with the intent to improve social outcomes, hurt the people who follow them._





> The paradox is as follows:





> Law-abiding citizens obey the laws
> Criminals are lawbreakers, and thus do not obey the law
> Laws impose restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
> Laws, therefore, only hurt law-abiding citizens
> Without exception, every law could be refuted with the lawbreaker’s paradox, and societies would swiftly descend into anarchy if it weren’t for reasonable policymakers. Laws against rape, murder, and theft, for example, are rarely followed by rapists, murderers, and thieves, but the fact that such people exist in society is the reason behind such regulations in the first place.



Not only is this conservative sound-bite irrelevant to gun reform discussion, it’s also socially untenable and dangerously naïve. If we were to accept that a law is justified only if it has a 100% compliance rate (this is, necessarily, the logical extension of any position that renounces legal reform under the pretense that ‘criminals don’t obey laws’), then we could systematically dismantle every existing law until nothing remains but the state of nature. Laws against murder, rape, and theft would be abandoned out of fear that criminals wouldn’t follow them, and that they would thus hurt law-abiding citizens who ostensibly murder, rape, and thieve out of self-defense. Taking this argument to its logical endpoint, even the most hardened of libertarians would be reticent to accept a world where property crimes can be used to abrogate property rights.
Not to mention that there are already plenty of weapons that have been banned which criminals aren’t using– RPGs, machine guns, anti-tank weapons, surface-to-air missiles, and so on. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean that criminals automatically have a desire to use said weapons, or have access to a black market that could supply them.


----------



## BobF (Jun 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Why not do away with ALL laws then?   Only the law abiding citizens follow them anyway.
> 
> http://www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control
> 
> [/I]



Not sure those charts are really meaningful either.   Showing only gun crimes and their direction after gun control has only one point showing.    The other, and much bigger picture means they must re establish overall trends over time and show then how killings do trend.    Immediate trends when guns first taken away don't show an overall change that would come with time.

I don't think this can be applied to anyone in particular.    We all use  laws we agree with and then violate the others to one degree or  another.   Nothing is so simple or pure as to say we all respond the  same to all laws or regulations.

For examples, look to the  highways.   Speed limits are good for many of us, most of the time.     Some times we speed to make time.   Sometimes we must speed to clear a  relatively slow driver who is blocking traffic on the highways.     Sometimes in slow city traffic we just switch lanes suddenly to get into  a faster lane.   I say most of us to follow the laws when it is OK but  then we also adjust our driving whenever hoping to improve our time and  distance for a drive.

My point being that not all of us follow all rules all the time always.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 21, 2015)

AND my point is.... No anti gun control proponent.. you included, has a solution to end the carnage that seems to permeate THIS country over all other developed countries.  The only thing offered is the silly statement about only criminals getting guns or following laws.    Is there a correlation with the ease of availability of firearms?   It would seem so as we lead the world in firearm deaths.   What is the answer??   I say it's sensible gun control.. you say NO..  if not, then what is?


----------



## BobF (Jun 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> AND my point is.... No anti gun control proponent.. you included, has a solution to end the carnage that seems to permeate THIS country over all other developed countries.  The only thing offered is the silly statement about only criminals getting guns or following laws.    Is there a correlation with the ease of availability of firearms?   It would seem so as we lead the world in firearm deaths.   What is the answer??   I say it's sensible gun control.. you say NO..  if not, then what is?



If you are pointing to me I say you are way off when saying what you have just posted.   I have not said no to what you say is sensible gun control.   That type of statement is true for one person only as all of us have different ideas about 'sensible' gun controls.    I keep suggesting the folks go to their Congressmen and post their idea of good or better.    Only Congress can make any nationwide changes to gun control.    Otherwise it is good to approach your state Congress and offer them the idea of good or better.    In the US none of us has the power or authority to demand changes to our system.   Not even Obama can do that legally as it is all supposed to pass through our Congress to achieve a national recognition.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> If you are pointing to me I say you are way off when saying what you have just posted.   I have not said no to what you say is sensible gun control.   That type of statement is true for one person only as all of us have different ideas about 'sensible' gun controls.    I keep suggesting the folks go to their Congressmen and post their idea of good or better.    Only Congress can make any nationwide changes to gun control.    Otherwise it is good to approach your state Congress and offer them the idea of good or better.    In the US none of us has the power or authority to demand changes to our system.   Not even Obama can do that legally as it is all supposed to pass through our Congress to achieve a national recognition.



What exactly IS your idea of "sensible gun control"?


----------



## BobF (Jun 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> What exactly IS your idea of "sensible gun control"?



And I repeat again what I have said over and over is contact your Congress persons and state what ever you choose to be your favorite way.   I don't have one directly as it can change over and over as all cases are different and need judged that way.    I have no problems with the 2nd Amendment at all.

In fact a couple years back gun problems dropped.   I tried to get a newer listing but would now have to sign on.   Will keep on looking for newer data.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/200671-fbi-now-know-record-numbers-gun-sales-means-gun-crimes-america/


  [h=1]FBI Drops Truth-Bomb on Gun Control Advocates: Firearms Numbers at Record Levels & Violent Crime Decreases[/h] 

   By Charles Samuel (7 months ago) | Nation, Politics 



The FBI just released its data for _Crime in the United States, 2013_ and gun control lobbyists are probably not going to like what it says.


 According to the report,  while background checks for firearm purchasers hit record levels in  2013 — 21,093,273 to be exact — “violent crimes in 2013 decreased 4.4  percent when compared with 2012 figures, and the estimated number of  property crimes decreased 4.1 percent.”

FBI data over the last 5 years show that there’s been a drop in  violent crimes and property crimes over that span. Here’s a  chart the agency provided:



Image Credit: FBI

 While we’ve seen hints of this before,  we finally have the data in front of us to understand the correlation  between purchasing guns and crimes committed with guns: there is no  correlation.


..................

I have been looking for more current data but no finding it like I could a couple years ago.    Will keep looking as I know it is here somewhere.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 21, 2015)

Ok... that's what I thought... you don't see guns and the easy availability of guns as a problem...   alrighty then...  lol!!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> One thing I did not make clear in my many efforts to end the 2nd Amendment comments.    The crazed or criminal types just don't care what the 2nd Amendment says.   They just want to harm some folks and guns registered or not will do the job.   Something more must be done to end those wild efforts and the use of any weapons that may be available.   Guns, knives, explosives are all being used to harm others.   Some how we need to end these threats.



Another thing common to all these mass shootings, is they generally take place in gun-free zones, churches, theaters, military bases, etc.  I wouldn't go to a place to kill people if I knew some of them were legally carrying and could take me out before my mission was accomplished.


----------



## BobF (Jun 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Ok... that's what I thought... you don't see guns and the easy availability of guns as a problem...   alrighty then...  lol!!



And obviously we do think differently.    There is no law preventing that.   Did you read the charts I posted?   Problems seem to be going down, just what you want isn't it?    Seems like it is on the right track per that chart.

And nothing that you or I can do ourselves but contact our Congress people and suggest more restrictions.   Winning and complaining will never fix anything.


----------



## Kitties (Jun 21, 2015)

I was driving home a few weeks ago listening to this stupid call in talk program. One of the co-hosts stated in 20 years there would be no racism as all the racists would have died out and it's a new generation. I remember thinking 'you are one stupid ignorant blank blank'

Beyond sadly this happens. I wonder if that talk show individual makes the connection to his statement.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 21, 2015)

> Problems seem to be going down, just what you want isn't it?



Are you out of you mind? Look around at the rest of the world. 
The USA has a massive problem that needs something done about it.

It isn't just about guns but it is about them. 
Deep rooted cultural change takes longer to achieve but sensible gun control can begin anytime people are prepared to introduce it.

IMO there should be no gun free zones declared because gun free should be the default position. Rather, limit the places where certain people may have a gun on them and the conditions that apply. Law enforcement should have the authority to impound weapons that are carried illegally.

If I were to walk down a street in Sydney with a pistol on my hip or a rifle slung over my arm it wouldn't be very long before I would be facing a couple of police officers who would be asking me a lot of hard questions. This is the cultural change that I referred to earlier and it is what makes me unafraid to walk downtown, visit a church or a shopping mall and it is what keeps our kids safe at school.


----------



## BobF (Jun 21, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Are you out of you mind? Look around at the rest of the world.
> The USA has a massive problem that needs something done about it.
> 
> It isn't just about guns but it is about them.
> ...



Warrigal, did you read the charts I put up earlier.   We have more weapons than ever registered, but the gun incidents are also falling.   Don't you at least recognize that and appreciate what is happening in the US.   

I see no justification in judging the US against lots of other countries.   The US still has a Constitution that guaranties citizen freedoms from birth to death.   Many countries in this world are more likely driven by older forms of government where attention is given to the divine leaderships and royalties.   Not quite as free as the US.   Our ways will change but not just because someone says so.   It must all be taken through our Congress, and maybe even further if it requires Constitutional change.   As long as our government keeps it's rights, there will be no fast changes on anything at all.

If you have not seen my charts, back up a couple or so inputs and take a look at them.   I think it is pretty good for the recent years of the US in our battle against criminal gun actions.   One weak place is our inability to challenge mental suspicions as that knowledge has been assigned to private and personal privileged information.   It must be somehow released to gun registration efforts.

So more guns than ever registered but lower incidents recorded.   Sounds like the right direction to me.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 21, 2015)

Perhaps it would help if we did a little more early intervention with our budding criminals/addicts/crazies.  Around here where I live, you get a slap on the wrist for your first few arrests, and or, get released on bail to go do it again.  Maybe if we took more interest early on instead of just saying "tsk tsk boys will be boys"  we might stop some of this before it gets to critical mass.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 21, 2015)

We already have more people incarcerated than any other country.  Should we just lock everyone up for anything?


----------



## tnthomas (Jun 21, 2015)

> n 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S


Source



> In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000  *motor vehicle *crashes (30,296 fatal crashes), killing 32,999


Source

For those that live in the cities it appears that there's the belief that the police can somehow protect citizens from criminal activity, hence the anti-gun sentiment.

In rural areas people understand that they are "on their own" for security, hence the pro-gun sentiment.     A gun is a tool, and as any tool that is dangerous, should be kept out of the hands of those who are not competent.

Laws enacted over the last 40+ years have reduced motor vehicle deaths, yet allowed continued ownership of motor vehicles.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> We already have more people incarcerated than any other country.  Should we just lock everyone up for anything?



Not necessarily lock 'em up in jail, but maybe make an effort to see what's going on with them before we turn them loose.  

We need to find a way to identify the serious crazies before they go on and murder a bunch of people.  In this recent instance, a psychiatrist or counselor had serious concerns about the shooter's intentions, but there was no way she could do anything about it or tip off authorities.  I don't know what the answer is, but we need to find it.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 22, 2015)

We are currently looking at our domestic violence problem which is described as "Australia's dirty little secret". On average two women per week have been killed by an intimate partner this year. This statistic is not so much about guns as it is about booze. Booze is not the cause of domestic violence but it does make it worse.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tic-violence-must-go-beyond-cries-of-misogyny

To solve any social problem it is necessary to examine it carefully, not sweep it under the carpet. Then there has to be a will to turn it around that is expressed in serious financial commitment to deal with the causes and to change attitudes. 

Albert Einstein may or may not have said "_Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."_


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 22, 2015)

Move to a better topic


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Warrigal, did you read the charts I put up earlier.   We have more weapons than ever registered, but the gun incidents are also falling.   Don't you at least recognize that and appreciate what is happening in the US.
> 
> I see no justification in judging the US against lots of other countries.   The US still has a Constitution that guaranties citizen freedoms from birth to death.   Many countries in this world are more likely driven by older forms of government where attention is given to the divine leaderships and royalties.   *Not quite as free as the US. *  Our ways will change but not just because someone says so.   It must all be taken through our Congress, and maybe even further if it requires Constitutional change.   As long as our government keeps it's rights, there will be no fast changes on anything at all.
> 
> ...



I try to avoid gun arguments as it's like bashing my head against a brick wall.  But this statement which I read repeatedly really pisses me off. Many Americans have this arrogant attitude that the US is the only free country in the world.  And, no, that does not make me an anti-American American. 

Tell me exactly how you are more free than I am living in the UK.  So there's a Queen?  She really has no power.  Big deal.  We have freedom of speech.  We don't have more guns than population or people walking around with them while they are shopping with their kids.  Fine with me.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 22, 2015)

I went to the city today to visit the dentist. She is in a building near Central Railway, which is not a terribly flash section of the city.
As I hobbled down to my destination I looked about me at the people. They were a mixed bag, various ethnicities, and all ages from toddlers in prams to the unemployed man selling The Big Issue magazine on a corner. I wondered how many of them might be carrying a gun and decided that none of them were. Why would they?

I felt absolutely free.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 22, 2015)

How free can we call ourselves?   Whenever we go out in public, or attend a public event, there is the distinct possibility that some moron will open fire.. and an even better possibility that some armed citizens will open fire on him, killing innocent bystanders.   Personally, this makes us LESS free.  We live in a world much like the wild west..  You never know who's got a gun... or who will use it, or who they will kill with it..  That's not freedom.   A few months ago  I attended the movie American Sniper.  As I sat in the theater, I was thinking that THIS movie if any might trigger some idiot to come in and open fire.  I remember looking at the door by movie screen and thinking that if I saw it open, should I run or lie on the floor.   Is that FREEDOM?   It's fear.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I try to avoid gun arguments as it's like bashing my head against a brick wall.  But this statement which I read repeatedly really pisses me off. Many Americans have this arrogant attitude that the US is the only free country in the world.  And, no, that does not make me an anti-American American.
> 
> Tell me exactly how you are more free than I am living in the UK.  So there's a Queen?  She really has no power.  Big deal.  We have freedom of speech.  We don't have more guns than population or people walking around with them while they are shopping with their kids.  Fine with me.



Sorry you are upset as what I said is about how the different governments get their leads.   Big difference is that in the US we are supposed to get our inputs directly from the people, as all our governments are elected by the people, and then debate it in the congress to either accept it or alter it or reject it.   

As I said, in other countries there is some sort of lead for the governments with  historical leads officially overseeing the currents governments directions.   So there is often an oversight type of government.   It does exist, how rigidly does it operate I don't know, just that there is some sort of oversight from inside.   I am only trying to point out a difference. 

  We in the US have no royalties or lifetime leaders at all.   Our governments are locally arranged and tolerated till next elections and replaced.   To my thinking that is a better way and I expressed my thinking quite freely, same as you when you responded.   It has been a good deal for over 200 years and we should try to keep it that way for future years too.

I tried to avoid picking on any country,  I was only saying how things are different in the US from many other countries.   We have a Constitution for our guiding, and that is about all I can think of.    And that is in the realm of the peoples ability to modify if desired.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 22, 2015)

Things here certainly ARE different than it other developed countries... and certainly NOT for the better.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Sorry you are upset as what I said is about how the different governments get their leads.   Big difference is that in the US we are supposed to get our inputs directly from the people, as all our governments are elected by the people, and then debate it in the congress to either accept it or alter it or reject it.
> 
> As I said, in other countries there is some sort of lead for the governments with  historical leads officially overseeing the currents governments directions.   So there is often an oversight type of government.   It does exist, how rigidly does it operate I don't know, just that there is some sort of oversight from inside.   I am only trying to point out a difference.
> 
> ...



You can not upset me, Bob.  You obviously have no knowledge of the world outside your own borders.  We elect our leaders in the UK as well.  The monarchy does not lead this country, nor does the House of Lords which is quickly shrinking.  There is a parliament here and the leaders and MPs are elected.  We are allowed to complain about them and do so, loudly.  Our constitution is unwritten but is still followed.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> You can not upset me, Bob.  You obviously have no knowledge of the world outside your own borders.  We elect our leaders in the UK as well.  The monarchy does not lead this country, nor does the House of Lords which is quickly shrinking.  There is a parliament here and the leaders and MPs are elected.  We are allowed to complain about them and do so, loudly.  Our constitution is unwritten but is still followed.



Some have no knowledge of where they are living is certainly true.   I brought no harm to the UK in my comments.   I have kept my comments general to avoid such claims.   Some countries are run by religions, some by kingdoms, some by twisted set up like China and their communist style of government, which not longer operates as a true communist government would.   You claim no direct intervention in UK and that is likely true.   And yet there are certain folks in the UK territories that have a certain authority that they can bring forward on occasion if necessary.   Even in nearly disjointed from the UK countries like Australia there is such a person in the shadows.   I don't remember their titles, as it means nothing to me, but the government is a bit bigger than just the Parliament.

Personal comment is that I was really surprised that both the US and UK allow a person to claim citizenship and allow voting in both nations at the same time.   There was a time when that would not have been allowed.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Some have no knowledge of where they are living is certainly true.   I brought no harm to the UK in my comments.   I have kept my comments general to avoid such claims.   Some countries are run by religions, some by kingdoms, some by twisted set up like China and their communist style of government, which not longer operates as a true communist government would.   You claim no direct intervention in UK and that is likely true.   And yet there are certain folks in the UK territories that have a certain authority that they can bring forward on occasion if necessary.   Even in nearly disjointed from the UK countries like Australia there is such a person in the shadows.*   I don't remember their titles, as it means nothing to me, but the government is a bit bigger than just the Parliament.*
> 
> Personal comment is that I was really surprised that both the US and UK allow a person to claim citizenship and allow voting in both nations at the same time.   There was a time when that would not have been allowed.



Yes, it means nothing to you and therefore you shouldn't comment on things that you know nothing about and can't be bothered to learn about. 

What's wrong with dual citizenship and voting in both countries?  You do realize that it depends on what countries you are a citizen of, right?  The US allows it with countries that are their allies.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Yes, it means nothing to you and therefore you shouldn't comment on things that you know nothing about and can't be bothered to learn about.
> 
> What's wrong with dual citizenship and voting in both countries?  You do realize that it depends on what countries you are a citizen of, right?  The US allows it with countries that are their allies.



This comment shows just how mixed up you yourself are.    Without allowing comments on what we might not know everything about means we must all just shut up and go away.   If the US is doing this I wonder why.   Do those allowed to vote also pay taxes to the US to help pay for those they vote in and what they happen to vote for?    They should.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> This comment shows just how mixed up you yourself are.    Without allowing comments on what we might not know everything about means we must all just shut up and go away.   If the US is doing this I wonder why.   Do those allowed to vote also pay taxes to the US to help pay for those they vote in and what they happen to vote for?    They should.



No, you made comments as though you knew what you were talking about - implying that a monarch rules a country and also implying some mystery person has power in Australia.  Huh!?  

The US is the only western country that double taxes its citizens abroad.  This is why highly paid expats who are also dual citizens are giving up their US citizenship in droves.  I never made the equivalent of $95K which is the cut off point for double paying taxes.  I have to file US taxes every year and have to list my UK income.  I get pensions from both countries.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> No, you made comments as though you knew what you were talking about - implying that a monarch rules a country and also implying some mystery person has power in Australia.  Huh!?
> 
> The US is the only western country that double taxes its citizens abroad.  This is why highly paid expats who are also dual citizens are giving up their US citizenship in droves.  I never made the equivalent of $95K which is the cut off point for double paying taxes.  I have to file US taxes every year and have to list my UK income.  I get pensions from both countries.



Hateful, two faced comments that show you are speaking from nowhere.   What I spoke of is what I really know is a possibility of the UK and Australia.   You must not know of the positions or persons I am talking of or you would have posted your knowledge.   I never meant any of this hatred you are posting so it is all in your mind and ways of responding to things you know little about.   Your responses are all political and not factual.

Glad to hear there is a tax position that must be followed every year.   Seems to be pretty high cut off but if that is the law, so be it.

I will continue to post as I see things and not in order to get put down by someone that knows little more than me by your choice of life.    I see England to be in a rather precarious economic position these days just as I see the US going down that same route.

No more of your hate filled post as your last couple inputs.    Not the intent of my original posts on this thread.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Hateful, two faced comments that show you are speaking from nowhere.   What I spoke of is what I really know is a possibility of the UK and Australia.   You must not know of the positions or persons I am talking of or you would have posted your knowledge.   I never meant any of this hatred you are posting so it is all in your mind and ways of responding to things you know little about.   Your responses are all political and not factual.
> 
> Glad to hear there is a tax position that must be followed every year.   Seems to be pretty high cut off but if that is the law, so be it.
> 
> ...



What??!!  I'm supposed to post facts when I have no clue what you are talking about?  I'm not psychic!  

I don't live in England.  Check your map.  England is only one country in the UK.  It's typical that you would call the entire island England. 

You agree with a tax law that requires those who work and earn in the UK only should pay tax twice on that income?  And pay tax to the US when they didn't even earn the money from the US?  FFS. 

I give up.  As usual you haven't a clue.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 22, 2015)

BobF, don't bother replying.  You're now on Ignore.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

Thank goodness as any more of your political style of responses is not need for anyone.

Both my son and my daughter have lived in UK, as you insist, and both have enjoyed living there.   My son lived there for long periods and has many friends in UK, as you insist.   He has a membership in a rail road group and loved it a lot.   He is currently thinking of moving back to UK, as you insist, and living there some more.   He never speaks with the smart mouth about things there or here, as some seem to want to do.

Why shouldn't the US tax those making money elsewhere if they are allowed to vote for our politicians?    Seems real fair to me.   Vote in folks and you should pay for their efforts as well.   If above $90 thousand those are well paid folks and can afford to pay a bit of tax to the US.

Time for you to allow others to post on this forum without such snide and nasty responses.   I won't stop posting but maybe if you do stop your nasty attitude responses it won't matter to me or others.

I started with general responses but in the last few I have been driven to be selective and defensive.   No need for that on this or any forum.   I hope you really mean you won't be posting anymore.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 22, 2015)

Poor BobF..  everyone is always so "nasty" to you...  even someone like Ameriscot  who normally isn't nasty to anyone..  Did you ever stop to ponder that?


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Poor BobF..  everyone is always so "nasty" to you...  even someone like Ameriscot  who normally isn't nasty to anyone..  Did you ever stop to ponder that?



Yes QuickSilver, I did stop and wonder why when I post in general terms that another poster decided to use specific responses and keeps twisting the topic from general to hating the UK.   None of my posts were  intended to do such as I was trying to keep in a general tone.   Read my posts prior to such twisted responses from one poster.   No reason for such nasty comments.   Many of the opposing persons comments were not true as I was being told I knew nothing.   Yep.   Such a sweet person that is.  

And not everyone is nasty to me at all.    I have some very nice UK folks that I can post with and also can write emails too.   It is not the UK folks that are nasty at all.   It is the US types that think they know it all and others are just stupid.

And yes, many that get caught in one of these one sided exchanges just quite the forum.   So far, I have kept hanging on and trying to not be offensive.   But I also do stick around and prefer not making enemies.    But some folks seem to prefer to be enemies of all that don't just mimic a single line of thought.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 22, 2015)

I didn't see any nasty twisted comments from Ameriscot...   Not any more nasty than your comments to her.   Perhaps you need to re-read some of your comments to her.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 22, 2015)

A clarification on some principles.

Voting rights are attached to citizenship, not payment of taxes. I am a citizen of just one nation and am entitled to vote in Australian elections whether I live in this country or elsewhere, whether I pay taxes in this country or not. In fact, I pay no income tax at all on my current level of income, yet I vote. If I were to live overseas I would still be entitled to my Australian pension too, provided a reciprocal arrangement exists between the two countries.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 22, 2015)

I get so sick of BobF coming in and stating his damn fool, half cocked opinions and in the course of that insulting not only other countries  but GOOD Members of this forum.  I live in the same state he does and I see daily in the Phoenix area the mayhem and death caused by the results of BobF and others of his stripe and their "gun freedom".  This state is jam packed with the people who release not only the wholesale guns onto the population but support those who are just as determined to take over this country with their fanatic hateful political figures.  Annie and others who have been assaulted by this poster, please understand that here in Arizona every election these people lose more and more platform for their hate.  Even "the toughest Sheriff in America" had come under his most serious challenges ever recently. He is a "tea party" hero.   One can only speculate how the father of the "conservative" movement, Barry Goldwater, of Arizona would feel if he saw his ideas perverted by today's Republicans.  I apologize to those offended by remarks demeaning to other countries and the arrogance it reflects.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I didn't see any nasty twisted comments from Ameriscot...   Not any more nasty than your comments to her.   Perhaps you need to re-read some of your comments to her.



So I repeat what I have said before.   I was posting in neutral tones, not posting at anyone, and then she replied with some rather sharp comments about me and my posts.   Likely some of my replies took on the similar tone towards her.   Go to the beginnings and not just in the part she played against me and her claims of my ignorance etc.   Some big difference from being neutral in judgement to be called ignorant, whatever else, she decided to dish out towards me.    I still prefer my neutral approach to her pointed responses.   I was talking about countries in general.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 22, 2015)

Reading a reply by this poster is like trying to read a Chinese newspaper upside down and backwards.  I have no idea what his point ever is.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

That Jim is because you are so full of one sided hate that common sense just does not register for you.

You have to read this entire forum to see what I was posting, neutral comments, prior to being called names and such as stupid etc..  Don't waste your time trying to catch up as those remarks in this thread are just a un necessary as you post above about guns.   I don't defend guns as you say and I don't push to remove guns either.   That is the effort of a full blown Constitution amendment of the 2nd Amendment.   So far in the US there is not enough effort to bring such a massive effort to being.   Not my fault at all.   If we do eliminate all guns for the real US citizens of merit, then the criminal ones will certainly rejoice.

Arizona has some very solid centered and right leaning citizens.   Not enough of the far far left types to mess the entire state up just now.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 22, 2015)

You are a joke.  Now, I see you have added a "far" to your "normal" "far" so now it's far far left.  Pathetic.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> A clarification on some principles.
> 
> Voting rights are attached to citizenship, not payment of taxes. I am a citizen of just one nation and am entitled to vote in Australian elections whether I live in this country or elsewhere, whether I pay taxes in this country or not. In fact, I pay no income tax at all on my current level of income, yet I vote. If I were to live overseas I would still be entitled to my Australian pension too, provided a reciprocal arrangement exists between the two countries.



And that is true of all US citizens too Warrigal.    My comment earlier was about voting and carrying citizenship in two countries.    For one, I did not know the US allowed that situation, it must have happened in one of our more recent years as it was not always true at all.    Seems to me that if you are allowed to vote then you must also expect to pay some taxes for any one you voted for decisions.   Probably a small amount if you live all year in a different country.    But some recognition that votes do give you some responsibility as well.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 22, 2015)

Bob, voting is a right and a duty over here. Paying taxes is also a duty but it is a means tested one.

It is right and proper that taxes should be paid in the country where income is generated, which is why we are angry at corporations that structure their businesses principally to avoid this obligation. Many of these organisations are what we would consider to be American companies although they have since gone global, and heaven help us the day these entities get the vote.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> You are a joke.  Now, I see you have added a "far" to your "normal" "far" so now it's far far left.  Pathetic.



Now Jim, you are sure not speaking of me.   As long as we have a far far left government running I have been using far far left in my postings.   You are just not observant or remembering well.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 22, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Bob, voting is a right and a duty over here. Paying taxes is also a duty but it is a means tested one.
> 
> It is right and proper that taxes should be paid in the country where income is generated, which is why we are angry at corporations that structure their businesses principally to avoid this obligation. Many of these organisations are what we would consider to be American companies although they have since gone global, and heaven help us the day these entities get the vote.



Well , they are already considered "people"... so can the vote be far behind?   But they don't really need to vote.. they buy elections and elicit favors from their puppets.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Bob, voting is a right and a duty over here. Paying taxes is also a duty but it is a means tested one.
> 
> It is right and proper that taxes should be paid in the country where income is generated, which is why we are angry at corporations that structure their businesses principally to avoid this obligation. Many of these organisations are what we would consider to be American companies although they have since gone global, and heaven help us the day these entities get the vote.



Right again Warrigal.   But the concerns were brought up when faced with dual citizenship as some seem to do these days.   Should they pay the taxes to the countries they vote in?    Some vote in both countries so why should they be taxed only in one country?   Their votes can put more expenses into either or both countries, so why not a taxes to help pay for what they voted for?

I believe that the taxes in UK started at and above $96,000 earned in UK to be taxed at some rate in the US.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Right again Warrigal.   But the concerns were brought up when faced with dual citizenship as some seem to do these days.   Should they pay the taxes to the countries they vote in?    Some vote in both countries so why should they be taxed only in one country?   Their votes can put more expenses into either or both countries, so why not a taxes to help pay for what they voted for?
> 
> I believe that the taxes in UK started at and above $96,000 earned in UK to be taxed at some rate in the US.



If they are not earning money in a country what would they be taxed on?  What you are suggesting amounts to a Poll tax..or paying for the right to vote, and last time I checked, that was illegal and unconstitutional.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 22, 2015)

You are still connecting the right to vote with the obligation to pay taxes.
These are independent but sometimes overlapping rights and duties.

For example if I were to live in America for a year I would be liable for income tax and other local taxes but not entitled to vote in any US elections. I could however vote in Australian elections even though I had not earned anything here to attract taxation. If on the other hand I had investments in Australia, I would have to submit a tax return. 

My point is that voting and paying taxes are independent of each other and that is how it should be. Something as important as the right to vote should not be dependent on how much money you make.


----------



## BobF (Jun 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> If they are not earning money in a country what would they be taxed on?  What you are suggesting amounts to a Poll tax..or paying for the right to vote, and last time I checked, that was illegal and unconstitutional.



If you read back over the posts that have been posted earlier today, Ameriscot in post 113, talked about her taxes and such.   I am not making this stuff up.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> If they are not earning money in a country what would they be taxed on?  What you are suggesting amounts to a Poll tax..or paying for the right to vote, and last time I checked, that was illegal and unconstitutional.



QS, I am required to file US income tax whether I've earned anything in the US or not. Not sure of the rate now but when I moved to the UK in 2000 I would have had to pay tax to the US on any UK income of the equivalent of $85k. Double taxed. No idea what the rate of taxation is. I never earned that amount on my own and of course my UK husbands income didn't count.

The US is the ONLY country which requires this of their expat citizens. This unfair taxation is the reason why so many dual citizen expats are giving up their US citizenship.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 23, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> QS, I am required to file US income tax whether I've earned anything in the US or not. Not sure of the rate now but when I moved to the UK in 2000 I would have had to pay tax to the US on any UK income of the equivalent of $85k. Double taxed. No idea what the rate of taxation is. I never earned that amount on my own and of course my UK husbands income didn't count.
> 
> The US is the ONLY country which requires this of their expat citizens. This unfair taxation is the reason why so many dual citizen expats are giving up their US citizenship.




So.. you file... and if you had made over a certain amount in the UK you would have had to pay tax in in the US?  So What is the debate about then?  You comply with the law and you also vote because you are a US citizen..  Not sure what bobF is taking exception to.  Is it the fact that you get to vote at all?


----------



## BobF (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So.. you file... and if you had made over a certain amount in the UK you would have had to pay tax in in the US?  So What is the debate about then?  You comply with the law and you also vote because you are a US citizen..  Not sure what bobF is taking exception to.  Is it the fact that you get to vote at all?



I am not sure what BobF is taking exception too either.    I only reported what was said in the forum.   Nothing excepted, nothing created.   Lets move on to new ideas.

Thank you Ameriscot for your comment.   Hopefully it will help clear this question up.


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 23, 2015)

How did taxes or citizenship fit into this thread? &#55357;&#56853;


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So.. you file... and if you had made over a certain amount in the UK you would have had to pay tax in in the US?  So What is the debate about then?  You comply with the law and you also vote because you are a US citizen..  Not sure what bobF is taking exception to.  Is it the fact that you get to vote at all?



BobF thinks the limit is too high.  I guess he wants those who make maybe £30K to pay taxes on that income twice.  He thinks taxes buy you the right the vote, so I guess those who don't pay tax shouldn't vote then, right?  Like those on welfare, disability, poor seniors.  

American expats giving up citizenship:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24135021
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...op-quarterly-record-for-giving-up-citizenship


----------



## BobF (Jun 23, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> BobF thinks the limit is too high.  I guess he wants those who make maybe £30K to pay taxes on that income twice.  He thinks taxes buy you the right the vote, so I guess those who don't pay tax shouldn't vote then, right?  Like those on welfare, disability, poor seniors.
> 
> American expats giving up citizenship:
> 
> ...



You have a way of saying what I did not say at all.    What a load of bull crap going on in this thread.

Nowere did I say anything about the E30k at all but to quote something you had posted.   I guess I did comment that if the US wants to know how much you make where ever you are, then if they want to tax, you will pay taxes to the US.   I did not set up the system, and frankly I don't think holding memberships in more than one country at a time should not have some cost to it as well.    I assume you are getting benefits from both nations or no reason to have both active memberships.   If so, then you should meet the IRS rules and at least post your status and incomes just like I do.

So why don't your end your twisting and lying about my posts?   If you can not post what you claim I have said you have nothing to say but made up nonsense.


----------



## BobF (Jun 23, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> How did taxes or citizenship fit into this thread? ��



I believe that Ameriscot brought that into the conversation.   Till she brought that up I had not even mentioned taxes or citizenship at all.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> Cookie, your post reminds me once again that I believe there is something very, very wrong with too many young white American males. These mass shootings seem epidemic these recent years,...or is it just more news coverage? I feel there is a huge mental health issue among this group that causes deep hatred. I wonder if there are any recent studies.


Actually, rose, statistics would puzzlingly seem to suggest that incidences of this nature are occurring slightly LESS frequently today than in decades past, but the current level of news coverage is certainly unprecedented.  I'm not really too sure I believe the stats anyway.  The typical 20 year old today is an incredible hot steaming mess as compared to when I was that age.  I blame the disintegration of the traditional family unit, video games, the failure of modern education and the aforementioned news coverage.

The FIRST thing we DESPERATELY need to do is to SEVERELY restrict the availability of guns to the general public.  (Oh, stop your whining, right wingers.  The 2nd Amendment was meant EXPRESSLY for the government sanctioned militia of three hundred years ago, not some redneck survivalist crackpot hiding out in a single-wide trailer in the Ozarks!)  Europeans don't have the levels of gun violence that we do because they don't let anybody but police and the army have them.

Next, get off the dime about mental health.  Monitor EVERYONE and lock them up if they start acting anti-social.  EVERY, SINGLE ONE of these mass murderers gave off plain signs of their ultimate intentions for months, or even years, before they finally popped.  We're so concerned with the illusion of 'personal freedom' that we're willing to pretend it isn't happening until the next unsupervised nut job rubs our faces in it again!


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

Teejay said:


> YEAH! ... What truespock SAID! (but you forgot to mention that blithering RAP CRAP!) View attachment 18869


Yup, teejay, 'that rap crap' definitely goes in there, too!  Plus, I added to my post significantly while you were making yours.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 23, 2015)

> Next,  get off the dime about mental health.  Monitor EVERYONE and lock them  up if they start acting anti-social.  EVERY, SINGLE ONE of these mass  murderers gave off plain signs of their ultimate intentions for months,  or even years, before they finally popped.  We're so concerned with the  illusion of 'personal freedom' that we're willing to pretend it isn't  happening until the next unsupervised nut job rubs our faces in it  again!


Not so sure about the monitoring everyone part, but I DO agree with doing something about people who area clearly giving off signs of doing something like this.  Seems like we could come up with some way to intervene without destroying personal freedom -- like requiring psychiatrists and the like to report people who show signs of going off the deep end, and taking seriously reports from citizens that someone is acting wacko.  And then doing something about it -- not just saying "yup, he's a wacko" and turning him loose.


----------



## truespock (Jun 23, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Not so sure about the monitoring everyone part, but I DO agree with doing something about people who area clearly giving off signs of doing something like this.  Seems like we could come up with some way to intervene without destroying personal freedom -- like requiring psychiatrists and the like to report people who show signs of going off the deep end, and taking seriously reports from citizens that someone is acting wacko.  And then doing something about it -- not just saying "yup, he's a wacko" and turning him loose.


School is the perfect place to keep an eye on everybody.  Train the teachers to notice the malcontents.  Relentlessly impress upon the kids to report anything threatening immediately.  Any kids caught in this net get a prompt psych evaluation.  The dangerous seeming ones get locked up for l o n g-term therapy.  Parents are the second line of defense.  Any kid with a gun fetish, or a case of the hates, or who demonstrates serious antisocial tendencies and the parents have 'no idea' needs to be remanded into state custody.

Antisocial behavior is a cancer in the body of society.  You either actively work to cut the cancer out, or it eventually kills the body.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 24, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> How did taxes or citizenship fit into this thread? &#55357;&#56853;



Sorry RR. This started when BobF said other countries were 'less free' than the US which I took exception to. I won't make any more comments in this thread.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 24, 2015)

truespock said:


> School is the perfect place to keep an eye on everybody.  Train the teachers to notice the malcontents.  Relentlessly impress upon the kids to report anything threatening immediately.  Any kids caught in this net get a prompt psych evaluation.  The dangerous seeming ones get locked up for l o n g-term therapy.  Parents are the second line of defense.  Any kid with a gun fetish, or a case of the hates, or who demonstrates serious antisocial tendencies and the parents have 'no idea' needs to be remanded into state custody.
> 
> Antisocial behavior is a cancer in the body of society.  You either actively work to cut the cancer out, or it eventually kills the body.



Unfortunately there have been massive cuts to mental health programs and many State facilities that housed them have been closed.  Seems this was one of the first areas to be cut to save money and to be able to give tax cuts to corporations.    Now we can reap the results of this stupidity.


----------



## BobF (Jun 24, 2015)

truespock said:


> School is the perfect place to keep an eye on everybody.  Train the teachers to notice the malcontents.  Relentlessly impress upon the kids to report anything threatening immediately.  Any kids caught in this net get a prompt psych evaluation.  The dangerous seeming ones get locked up for l o n g-term therapy.  Parents are the second line of defense.  Any kid with a gun fetish, or a case of the hates, or who demonstrates serious antisocial tendencies and the parents have 'no idea' needs to be remanded into state custody.
> 
> I never knew about that 30,000 number till Ameriscot posted it.   Prior to her intervention in my thoughts it was just a neutral situation.   No one nation over another in my comments.   She can claim all she wants but I never intended to start all this crap that continues.   It would be best if we just did not have other countries involved and leave the opinions be neutral as I intended it to be.   Just the problem and none of this blaming persons to be wrong.    I never wanted it to become one nation over another nation.    That was all injected by one person and not by me.   Even in my challenge to Warrigal I never spoke of one country over another country at all.   I never brought the UK into the conversation.
> 
> ...


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Unfortunately there have been massive cuts to mental health programs and many State facilities that housed them have been closed.  Seems this was one of the first areas to be cut to save money and to be able to give tax cuts to corporations.    Now we can reap the results of this stupidity.


EXACTLY!  Reestablishing compassionate and effective mental hospitals is one of the FIRST things we should address ... RIGHT AFTER we confiscate Joe Anti-Federalist's guns!!  I swear, if I have to hear any more BS willfully misinterpreted renderings of the 2nd Amendment, I might just have to SHOOT somebody!


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 24, 2015)

Way back in nursing school I did my psych rotation at a very large state mental hospital.  I spent 16 weeks observing and talking to severe schizophrenics.  It was fascinating, but frightening.   Yes.. these people were "crazy" in every sense of the word.. and sometimes dangerous.. BUT mostly they were vulnerable.  The conditions in that hospital were not great, but they were kept safe from predators... and society was kept safe from them.   Many had been hospitalized for so long that they no longer had families.. or visitors..    That facility was closed due to budget cuts.. where did those people go?   To the streets I guess..  along with every other sociopath or psychopath. who can be pretty cunning... and able to buy guns.


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

> I never intended to start all this crap that continues. -- BobF




I assume that you mean by 'all this crap that continues', any opinion which fails to conform to your own--which, I couldn't help but notice, applies to everyone else here.  I submit to you, sir, that if you really wish to be the SOLE 2nd Amendmentist amongst a phalanx of people who can see the wisdom in comprehensive gun restrictions, you should take the trouble to learn the fine art of rational debate.  Your so-called 'facts' are emotionally based regurgitations of tedious NRA propaganda and your oblique references to 'the far, far left' merely serve to indicate your own EXTREME political bias.

Perhaps the poetry reading section might suit you better.


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Way back in nursing school I did my psych rotation at a very large state mental hospital.  I spent 16 weeks observing and talking to severe schizophrenics.  It was fascinating, but frightening.   Yes.. these people were "crazy" in every sense of the word.. and sometimes dangerous.. BUT mostly they were vulnerable.  The conditions in that hospital were not great, but they were kept safe from predators... and society was kept safe from them.   Many had been hospitalized for so long that they no longer had families.. or visitors..    That facility was closed due to budget cuts.. where did those people go?   To the streets I guess..  along with every other sociopath or psychopath. who can be pretty cunning... and able to buy guns.


The abysmal conditions WERE used at the time as an excuse to close out the era of institutionalization, but it WAS mainly a right wing effort to divert more public monies to the pockets of the wealthy.  I'd like to think that we could learn from past mistakes, for once, and build a system of mental hospitals that is clean and decent and safe ... for the people on BOTH sides of the locked gates.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 24, 2015)

truespock said:


> The abysmal conditions WERE used at the time as an excuse to close out the era of institutionalization, but it WAS mainly a right wing effort to divert more public monies to the pockets of the wealthy.  I'd like to think that we could learn from past mistakes, for once, and build a system of mental hospitals that is clean and decent and safe ... for the people on BOTH sides of the locked gates.




Yes... that is exactly the excuse that was used.. but very little was offered these people..  half-way houses..  places to come to get their medication.  Unfortunately, those that are so mentally ill, don't have the capacity to stay on their medication regimin, and end up roaming the streets becoming easy prey.  Yes.. many of those facilities were little more than "warehouses"... but that, unfortunately, was the purpose of them.  People living there were not going to get better.. and they needed a place to be.


----------



## BobF (Jun 24, 2015)

truespock said:


> > I never intended to start all this crap that continues. -- BobF
> >
> >
> >
> > ...


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> truespock said:
> 
> 
> > > I never intended to start all this crap that continues. -- BobF
> ...


----------



## BobF (Jun 24, 2015)

truespock said:


> BobF said:
> 
> 
> > truespock said:
> ...


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> truespock said:
> 
> 
> > BobF said:
> ...


----------



## BobF (Jun 24, 2015)

truespock said:


> BobF said:
> 
> 
> > truespock said:
> ...


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 24, 2015)

Mercy, TS,  let's open an onsite clinic right now, soon we will all need therapy, even the foreign nationals. You soothe the Americans, I will care for the Canadianyr, and Merlin can Minister to the Aussies and Brits. Eek! Cleopatra is alive and well, sailing down Denial. Lol


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> truespock said:
> 
> 
> > BobF said:
> ...


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> truespock said:
> 
> 
> > BobF said:
> ...


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Mercy, TS,  let's open an onsite clinic right now, soon we will all need therapy, even the foreign nationals. You soothe the Americans, I will care for the Canadianyr, and Merlin can Minister to the Aussies and Brits. Eek! Cleopatra is alive and well, sailing down Denial. Lol


Well said, delightful mermaid.  I think we can all see who NEEDS to be our first patient, too.  Bring me the Thorazine, STAT!


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> BobF said:
> 
> 
> > truespock said:
> ...


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 24, 2015)

Thorazine on tap, TS. For me, Haloperidol, and a double Glenfiddich should render me suitably catatonic/dead.


----------



## BobF (Jun 24, 2015)

truespock said:


> BobF said:
> 
> 
> > truespock said:
> ...


----------



## BobF (Jun 24, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> BobF said:
> 
> 
> > truespock said:
> ...


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 24, 2015)

> Jim, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was written in 1791.   It purpose to help build a defensive well armed militia is a real and still needed item.


But this is 2015 and the National Guard no longer need to bring their own guns to the party. 
IMO, the second amendment is at best an anachronism and at worst an obstacle to public safety.


----------



## BobF (Jun 24, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> But this is 2015 and the National Guard no longer need to bring their own guns to the party.
> IMI, the second amendment is at best an anachronism and at worst an obstacle to public safety.



This goes bigger than just the National Guard or other military units.    Suppose some bunch takes over the government and tries to change our ways of living.   Our private army will be ready to give those folks a major threat.   If the military sits down and fails to fight the corrupting bunch then the private army is likely to be ready all over this country to try to fight to protect our Constitution as needed.

As I see it those early American ideas are still great and need supported.   We sure don't want any take overs from inside or outside.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 24, 2015)

An army is a lot more than a bunch of men with guns. My father was a member of a civilian militia before WW II. It was a Scottish regiment and a disciplined unit. When war broke out it became a formal part of the AIF. 

The scenario you are describing is exactly what it taking place in Syria and Iraq. It is effectively civil war, with various militias fighting for ultimate control of whatever is left of the country when half of the population has either been killed or fled across the borders. How can you guarantee that the "right" militia of armed citizens will be the saviour of your country? What will stop the crazies from winning?


----------



## BobF (Jun 24, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> An army is a lot more than a bunch of men with guns. My father was a member of a civilian militia before WW II. It was a Scottish regiment and a disciplined unit. When war broke out it became a formal part of the AIF.
> 
> The scenario you are describing is exactly what it taking place in Syria and Iraq. It is effectively civil war, with various militias fighting for ultimate control of whatever is left of the country when half of the population has either been killed or fled across the borders. How can you guarantee that the "right" militia of armed citizens will be the saviour of your country? What will stop the crazies from winning?



Sorry, but I don't agree with you post at all.   If one of our governments fails to perform to the Constitution and the military is shut down by the corrupt government or one who has just tried taking over, the secret militia will do as well as it can to restore a proper government under the Constitution.   They do have organizations in some areas.   They do have enough firepower to cause any takeover group to think well about what they may wake up.   Sort of like the minutmen of the 1970's who were unorganized but manage to hurt those nasty colonial armies and helped create the US beginnings.

I know Warrigal, strong dreams and plenty of wishful thinking but that is the underground of the US that we hope keeps those nasty ones worried.

I would think there are more than one article or story about this situation.   Far better than a bunch of fearful ones whining their ways to Washington and hoping for some sort of political lie to happen.

Also, Australia is not gun free.   So why try to make the US be gun free.   I don't believe it is the registered guns in the US that is causing our troubles.   You saw the chart I posted a couple days back I hope.   It showed registration going up each year and the gun injuries were going down at the same time.    No correlation to the way some folks are thinking.  Go to #91 which today is on page number 7.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 24, 2015)

The confederacy was nothing but a bunch of insurrectionists who decided to take over the united states, they got their asses kicked an I am proud of some of my ancestors who did the kicking.  To this day they are wannabe rebels but guns or no guns it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## truespock (Jun 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> truespock said:
> 
> 
> > BobF said:
> ...


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 24, 2015)

> Also, Australia is not gun free.   So why try to make the US be gun free



Bob, you know perfectly well that I have never said that Australia is gun free but we do have sensible regulations about gun ownership and use.

Yes, we have a problem with  illegal guns in the hands of criminals but, and it is a very big but, we don't have nearly as many people wanting to own guns because we have no piece of paper that says it is our God given right to own any firearm we may choose simply because we want to. 

Since Port Arthur we have been much safer as a society and we have suffered no loss of freedom.

For the record Australia has had some experience of secret militias. Prior to WW II we had a society known as the New Guard that was a very conservative organisation (anti union for the most part) that recruited returned servicemen from the Great War, particularly the officers. D H Lawrence wrote about them in his novel Kangaroo. They were prepared to take over the government to preserve the Australian (i.e. British) way of life but in the end they fizzled out. Their sole achievement was to have someone charge up on his horse and slash the ribbon at the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge before the Labor Premier could do the deed.

Later we had a problem with Croatians setting up bush camps to train people to go back to fight in that particular conflict. They were quickly quashed.

IMO, secret militias are liabilities, not assets. Your, and our, best asset is our democratic systems of government. From time to time, as problems with the system surface, it may be necessary to modify it. It is not a good idea to do it using the authority of the gun but through the ballot box. The same goes for constitutions.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 25, 2015)

> Sorry, but I don't agree with you post at all. If one of our governments fails to perform to the Constitution and the military is shut down by the corrupt government or one who has just tried taking over, the secret militia will do as well as it can to restore a proper government under the Constitution. They do have organizations in some areas. They do have enough firepower to cause any takeover group to think well about what they may wake up. Sort of like the minutmen of the 1970's who were unorganized but manage to hurt those nasty colonial armies and helped create the US beginnings.



So some "Force".... and I fail to imagine what force could do so... invades the US and takes over the government..  NOW... this force would have to be powerful enough to take over the most powerful military in the world...  ...  a  SUPER ENTITY!!!..    But...  Never fear!!!


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 25, 2015)

Great cartoon, says it all...


----------



## BobF (Jun 25, 2015)

truespock said:


> BobF said:
> 
> 
> > truespock said:
> ...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 25, 2015)

BobF said:


> truespock said:
> 
> 
> > BobF said:
> ...


----------



## truespock (Jun 25, 2015)

BobF said:


> truespock said:
> 
> 
> > BobF said:
> ...


----------



## BobF (Jun 25, 2015)

For a person that claims to be psychiatrist, you must have graduated from that riot prone and messed up university in Berkly.   Your posts make little to no sense at all.   No wonder you are laughing.   It is a reflection of yourself.


----------



## BobF (Jun 25, 2015)

For me, I will no longer respond to any more posts on this thread.    There are a number of very nice people and good conversationalist on this thread, both for and against guns, but one in particular is really showing his ignorance and nasty attitude.   So I leave this thread to him to destroy as best he can.


----------



## truespock (Jun 25, 2015)

BobF said:


> For a person that claims to be psychiatrist, you must have graduated from that riot prone and messed up university in Berkly.   Your posts make little to no sense at all.   No wonder you are laughing.   It is a reflection of yourself.


Um, I never claimed to be a psychiatrist.  I said I am a clinical psychologist (read PhD. but no M.D.).  Plus, you misspelled BERKELEY, from which both my parents graduated long before it was a 'riot prone and messed up university'.  I'm a U.C.L.A. man myself; class of 1980.

From this point forward, I will simply post AROUND you, ignoring your regrettable presence here entirely.  You may now proceed to get in the last word, since your infantile ego will undoubtedly compel you to do so.  So long!


----------



## truespock (Jun 26, 2015)

A significant number of my most recent posts on this thread have been deleted by Matrix because I became 'overzealous' in my responses to a particularly irksome poster who, obviously, nobody else here much likes anyway.  It's readily apparent, from the caustic reactions of a FEW of you, that my attempts to 'vanquish the dragon' have blown up in my own face, which I do not, at all, appreciate.

While I now regret my ardor, in this case, I do NOT apologize for it, steadfastly maintaining that there is a creeping vein of mediocrity of thought on the internet which DEMANDS to be repeatedly kicked in its collective buttocks.  It is to be hoped that my future posts, in which I shall endeavor to restrain my outrage at the selective stupidity I so frequently encounter,  will better meet with your 'approval'.


----------

