Ozymandius Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 The top 3 news channels and the top 3 newspapers should make a pact with each other that from now on, they will not name the killer, show his face, or print his manifesto. Anyone who breaks the pact will be shamed by the other members of the pact. All other media outlets are encouraged to join the pact. Every new outlet that joins gets praised and listed on ThePact.com website. Readers and consumers of outlets that have not joined the pact should shame their outlets. The pact can be made today and announced publicly tomorrow after working out the logistics and making the website. Sure, there will always be outlets that resist and ways for people to find out the killer's name and face. But if I were a mass killer, there's no way I go through with it if I thought the public would actually have to search to find my name, face, and manifesto. "Put in effort? Americans don't do that. That's why I want to kill them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) The genie is simply out of the bottle. To sound Bush cold and uncompassionate: "Stuff happens." If they do decide to take away, it would be the gov't and they'd be giving the anti-gov't wackos the war they so long for. Just hope I don't get caught in the crossfire. Exactly!!! PTSD, never heard of it... It was the wife and three kids' problem! Anti govt wackos are a myth created by the leftist media. I don't think there are many anti government people. Just anti bad bloated authoritarian government that the taxpayers fund people. They have the selfish audacity to resent 40% of their paycheck confiscated. Audacity to resent having their kids brainwashed by the liberal media and education mill. Most conservatives. which you may think are anti government. just want to be left alone. Edited October 5, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Define that as the FF intended. Does it matter what the FF intended - or what we believe they intended? Ask - say - 9 educated thinkers - who get paid to think....and they seem to be just about evenly split about what the FF intended. Their intention is up to the eye of the beholder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 To those of you that don't support gun regulations, what do you propose should be done in order to lower gun violence? Not just mass shootings, but also individual crimes (like those in Chicago, Baltimore, DC, etc), suicides, domestic violence, etc. (Please note, I'm not suggesting gun regulations are the only solution, I'm genuinely curious to hear some solutions from people I don't generally agree with politically) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Does it matter what the FF intended - or what we believe they intended?.. How is this even debatable? Yes. It matters. It is what has founded and guided this country to be the greatest in history. The constitution isnt meant to be twisted into whatever party is in power wants it to be to push their own agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 To those of you that don't support gun regulations, what do you propose should be done in order to lower gun violence? Not just mass shootings, but also individual crimes (like those in Chicago, Baltimore, DC, etc), suicides, domestic violence, etc. (Please note, I'm not suggesting gun regulations are the only solution, I'm genuinely curious to hear some solutions from people I don't generally agree with politically) There are no solutions. There will always be a subset of the population who are dead set on killing/harming other people. This subset of people are: a) violent criminals, b) mentally ill, or c) both. The criminals who wish to use guns to do harm to others will not relinquish their guns if you criminalize ownership. They are, by definition, criminals who have proven willing to commit much greater offenses than ownership. Laws won't change this. The mentally ill, who are usually the ones committing mass murders, will simply use other means. Laws won't change this. The only people laws will disarm will be those who are law-abiding and otherwise peaceful. Further, laws will also turn those otherwise peaceful and law-abiding individuals who choose not to relinquish their firearms into criminals. The ultimate result of your regulations is more wide spread gun crime, and more innocents dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 There are no solutions. There will always be a subset of the population who are dead set on killing/harming other people. This subset of people are: a) violent criminals, b) mentally ill, or c) both. The criminals who wish to use guns to do harm to others will not relinquish their guns if you criminalize ownership. They are, by definition, criminals who have proven willing to commit much greater offenses than ownership. Laws won't change this. The mentally ill, who are usually the ones committing mass murders, will simply use other means. Laws won't change this. The only people laws will disarm will be those who are law-abiding and otherwise peaceful. Further, laws will also turn those otherwise peaceful and law-abiding individuals who choose not to relinquish their firearms into criminals. The ultimate result of your regulations is more wide spread gun crime, and more innocents dead. Why do you think we, as a country, have more criminals and/or mentally ill, compared to other countries? Do you think murders decrease if they're harder to commit (less efficient tools)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) To those of you that don't support gun regulations, what do you propose should be done in order to lower gun violence? Not just mass shootings, but also individual crimes (like those in Chicago, Baltimore, DC, etc), suicides, domestic violence, etc. (Please note, I'm not suggesting gun regulations are the only solution, I'm genuinely curious to hear some solutions from people I don't generally agree with politically) How many people out there don't support any gun regulation? It's cool that you'd like to hear solutions from an opposing point of view, but when you start out mischaracterizing the view of those you don't agree w/, you probably won't get the discussion you are looking for. Also, solutions to the wackos committing mass murder will necessarily be different than those to gang-related street crime. For the street crime, take a look at what worked in places like NYC in the '90's and emulate similar programs. Edited October 5, 2015 by Taro T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Does it matter what the FF intended - or what we believe they intended? Ask - say - 9 educated thinkers - who get paid to think....and they seem to be just about evenly split about what the FF intended. Their intention is up to the eye of the beholder.... It matters greatly what they intended if we are to be a nation of laws rather than a nation of lawyers. As for those nine you speak of? They aren't "educated thinkers, who get paid to think"; they are career lawyers who get paid to push specific political agendas, and can do so without fear of political retribution because they are lifetime appointees. Their job is not to try to divine Origionalist intent; but rather to hector and twist language to make it conform to their preferred biases. It's been that way since Marbury v Madison. Why do you think we, as a country, have more criminals and/or mentally ill, compared to other countries? Do you think murders decrease if they're harder to commit (less efficient tools)? You're going to need better definitions. For instance, the UK has a much higher rate of violent crime than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 How many people out there don't support any gun regulation? It's cool that you'd like to hear solutions from an opposing point of view, but when you start out mischaracterizing the view of those you don't agree w/, you probably won't get the discussion you are looking for. Also, solutions to the wackos committing mass murder will necessarily be different than those to gang-related street crime. For the street crime, take a look at what worked in places like NYC in the '90's and emulate similar programs. Sorry, had to be as general as possible because there's a huge level of nuance... and it'd take way too long to categorize each and every opinion on the topic, since it's broad. But generally speaking, we can go with 'pro gun' and 'anti gun', and I'm not saying that to insult anyone, it's just easier at the moment. There's definitely a crowd that supports more regulations, and there's definitely another crowd that doesn't want any more and/or thinks there should be less. No offense meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Click on this image to blow it up and read it, liberals. All the sources are at the bottom of the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Well........................our President did say to politicize it.............. Democrat Senator: Congress 'Endorsing Mass Murders' By Not Passing Gun Control http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-senator-congress-endorsing-mass-murders-by-not-passing-gun-control/ Nothing like the constructive accusations of the Left to help build compromise. Edited October 5, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Well........................our President did say to politicize it.............. Democrat Senator: Congress 'Endorsing Mass Murders' By Not Passing Gun Control http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-senator-congress-endorsing-mass-murders-by-not-passing-gun-control/ Nothing like the constructive accusations of the Left to help build compromise. Well of course. That's exactly what they're doing. Endorsing mass murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Democrat Senator: Congress 'Endorsing Mass Murders' By Not Passing Gun Control Brutal. When it comes to dividing the country, no one pisses all over a pile of dead bodies faster than the SoProgs of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Well........................our President did say to politicize it.............. Democrat Senator: Congress 'Endorsing Mass Murders' By Not Passing Gun Control http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-senator-congress-endorsing-mass-murders-by-not-passing-gun-control/ Nothing like the constructive accusations of the Left to help build compromise. Did someone ask him what it was called when the Democrats controlled Congress and did nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 To be fair, acknowledging this reality would entail wrongthink about women's responsibility for their sexual choices: Obama Ignores the Obvious in Oregon: Yet Another Fatherless Killer. “From shootings at MIT (i.e., the Tsarnaev brothers) to the University of Central Florida to the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia’s ‘list of U.S. school attacks’ involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.” Also: Anti-Gun Activists Call for Oregon Sheriff’s Head in Wake of Mass Shooting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 The genie is simply out of the bottle. I was having this conversation with my spouse and Mother-in-law today. I said I don't know what we can do. The horse has left the barn. We might just have to live with since our founding afathers were wise enough to write a totally ambiguous and contradictory Ammendment. They favored the usual, Gun show loophole, assault weapons ban etc. And my favorite, "we gotta ndo something.". No, we have to do something that has a chance to help. Probably the best argument I've heard on this thread is not publicising the name and manifesto and weapons used etc. They don't show people who run on a football field so as not to promote the bad behaviour after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 http://wkrn.com/2015/10/04/8-year-old-girl-dies-in-east-tenn-shooting-police-arrest-11-yr-old-suspect/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 We'd all be in the crossfire. First of all, the percentage of Americans that would resist is much greater than you probably think, and the percentage of military that would defect either overtly or secretively (to stay behind and sabotage) is also much greater than you probably think. Secondly, in case of civil war, countries like China and Russia aren't going to stay on the sidelines forever. They'll sit back and observe for awhile, sure, but at a crucial moment of weakness for us, they will make their move. Instead of wrecking our country and forcing all survivors of the civil war to have to learn Chinese to please our slavemasters, how about you liberals try out a realistic solution? I get it... Realistic=Stuff happens. Move-on and be more vigilant. Both sides throw the baby out with the bath water. Look @ 911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts