Knee Jerk Reactions!

[Dennis1209]

I preface this by saying this is a horrible, horrible tragedy, and it saddens my heart children were massacred.

 

Currently watching the news I finally got the reaction I was expecting from the liberal media. Obummers address didn't specifically address a feel good reaction but, the liberal press is all over it like flies on feces. Expect substantial gun control legislation introduced to address this massacre of innocents. 

 

Let's look at this from a logical perspective using knowledge and wisdom, and not a knee jerk reaction such as the Patriot Act. What separates us from the animal kingdom is the ability to thing and reason, and not react unreasonably, I think?

 

Most of the U.S population is on some type of drug sooner than later, be it illegal, legal as in prescribed medication for an assortment of ills, or just plain aspirin. Can't get it up, take a pill... Have an ache or pain, take another pill.. Having a problem with this or that, take more pills prescribed by the doctor or not, addressing the symptoms and blocking the pain. (Not saying that's bad).

 

My point being, doctors prescribe medicine (drugs) to mask the symptoms and not address the root cause. Until constructive surgery and / or physical and / or mental repair, it's drugs, drugs, drugs. Masking the root problem and not addressing the cause.

 

The "root" cause of the horrific acts is not what weapon he / she chose to commit the atrocities but, the individual him or her self. The media is "screaming" what can be done to prevent future acts such like this one and the previous massacres. Gun control of course!

 

I propose it's a product of liberalism, government and a secular society these days, not the weapon used to inflict such carnage. Our children are exposed to violence in the form of video games, TV, music, the Internet, gang-bangers, violence, smut, one parent families, welfare, sharia law, etc. and society as never before. Whom would disagree with that?

 

I'm preaching to the choir to many of you folks but, when our people elect government officials, by the will of the people, legislate evil as good and good as evil (I'll not mention them), we're in dire straights guys.

 

This question begs to be asked of y'all at the risk of seeming insensitive but...

 

Had that been your child needlessly slaughtered by a 24 year old madman, would you blame the weapon he / she used, or the individual?

 

My basic point is, it's not what was used to commit a heinous crime but, the persons heart and exposure to all the violence our government has legislated as acceptable from liberals hell bend on destroying this nation and what we formally stood for.

 

Just my opinion on what I've seen in the last six decades guys. Correct me if you see we're evolving into Nirvana?

[jcoosi]

Yes it falls to the individual. What ever inatimate object they use is just that an oblect they used. It was them that was at the crossroad and choose to take the path that they went down.

[Tempest455]

It's decay of society and little regard for the value of life anymore. My kids understand full and well the difference between a video game and real life.

That is, because we have a "family" and have parents that have taught them well.

 

The growing population, not so much............

[Smith]

Personally, I think it's a combination of a lot of things and I think they all have a common root. We have devalued personal responsibility: physically, emotionally, spiritually, and morally and this is what we get. The idea that humanity has evolved past it's base humanist, arrogant, and selfish nature is foolish. Technology has changed how we mask and/or display that nature, but human nature has not nor will it change. That is what we need to address not the tools employed.

 

That being said I'm more than a little bothered that the first vocalized emotions to much of this is political and/or societal hedging. Gun control, pharmaceuticals, government, education, etc. have a time and place to be discussed.  I don't think this is the time.

[Sam1]

The method in which people choose to create violence is irrelevant. In Africa they beat people with sticks and rocks until they can't fight back, put a car tire around their necks and set it on fire while they are still alive. I also highly doubt they are on the types of medication that exist here.

 

Point is, there are evil people in the world, and I couldn't even imagine what it feels like to be a parent in this type of situation, but I would not be blaming anyone or anything except the individuals that assisted in or acted in the violence.

[Guest Sysvr4]

As I read reports of people calling for increased firearm regulation, a thought occurred to me today....

 

Many people would agree that the media attention these events receive bear some responsibility in incentivizing deranged individuals to commit these type of acts.  However, there are entirely too many dollars involved for media outlets to all willingly agree to stop publicizing such events.  

 

So why are we not hearing calls to institute government-mandated media blackouts for this kind of thing?  You write about it or publicize it in any way - you go to jail.  Simple.

 

In other words, why is it ok (in the minds of some) to trample one set of constitutionally enumerated rights and not another?  Particularly when many would agree they are both causal to this type of tragedy.

[Guest seawolf138]

In other words, why is it ok (in the minds of some) to trample one set of constitutionally enumerated rights and not another?  Particularly when many would agree they are both causal to this type of tragedy.

I think that one is kind of obvious. Freedom of speech affects everyone, or they perceive that it does, whereas gun control only affects us.

[DaveTN]

If you take guns out of the equation and say they have no bearing on the real issue; what’s next?

 

I am absolutely sure something is going to happen here. Gun control wouldn’t work even if any of us believed in it. Drugs are illegal and they are plentiful to those that want them.

 

How do you suggest we get to the point of where when a person with mental problems that has not committed a crime tries to buy a gun; they are denied, or that they are not allowed access to guns in their homes?

 

However, keep in mind that is not what happened here. It appears (and we do not know for sure yet) either the mother legally bought these guns for herself, or she bought them for her family.

[mikegideon]

Personally, I think it's a combination of a lot of things and I think they all have a common root. We have devalued personal responsibility: physically, emotionally, spiritually, and morally and this is what we get. The idea that humanity has evolved past it's base humanist, arrogant, and selfish nature is foolish. Technology has changed how we mask and/or display that nature, but human nature has not nor will it change. That is what we need to address not the tools employed.

 

That being said I'm more than a little bothered that the first vocalized emotions to much of this is political and/or societal hedging. Gun control, pharmaceuticals, government, education, etc. have a time and place to be discussed.  I don't think this is the time.

Unfortunately, the libtards began screaming confiscation before the blood was dry. I can only take so much of that before I fire back.

[DaveTN]

 

In other words, why is it ok (in the minds of some) to trample one set of constitutionally enumerated rights and not another?  Particularly when many would agree they are both causal to this type of tragedy.

Because 1^st and 2^nd amendment cases make their way through the courts systems, where they are settled, or they ultimately end up at the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution. That is the way our founding Fathers wanted it and documented it. Any change from that and you throw the Constitution out and start over. That’s not happening and isn’t what most of us want.

[mikegideon]

If you take guns out of the equation and say they have no bearing on the real issue; what’s next?

 

I am absolutely sure something is going to happen here. Gun control wouldn’t work even if any of us believed in it. Drugs are illegal and they are plentiful to those that want them.

 

How do you suggest we get to the point of where when a person with mental problems that has not committed a crime tries to buy a gun; they are denied, or that they are not allowed access to guns in their homes?

 

However, keep in mind that is not what happened here. It appears (and we do not know for sure yet) either the mother legally bought these guns for herself, or she bought them for her family.

How do you prevent someone from attacking people. This is REAL simple. We just have a large quantity of idiots in charge. Can that same shooter come into your house and kill everybody?

Edited December 15, 2012 by mikegideon

[HvBikeWlTravel]

This may be a knee-jerk reactions, but I'm ready to pay a little more in taxes to have at least 2 armed security/law enforcement officers at every school. And I don't have kids. It should be noted that these "sicko psychos" only attack the unarmed. Never heard of one going to the State Police Barracks to wreak havoc. Nor do you hear of much gun-play at international airports now that security has been beefed up. Just my initial thought.

[Smith]

Because 1^st and 2^nd amendment cases make their way through the courts systems, where they are settled, or they ultimately end up at the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution. That is the way our founding Fathers wanted it and documented it. Any change from that and you throw the Constitution out and start over. That’s not happening and isn’t what most of us want.

 

Oh, WOW Dave, The SCOTUS is NOT the final interpreter of the Constitution. They are a check and balance in the system that was designed to be checked by the congress and the executive office as well. It is not a linear line up. Ever hear of three separate but equal branches? Just because the libs want to make one office supreme over the others does not make it so. Seems you might have thrown out your copy of the constitution,

[DaveTN]

How do you prevent someone from attacking people. This is REAL simple. We just have a large quantity of idiots in charge. Can that same shooter come into your house and kill everybody?

You can’t prevent people from attacking each other. But are you suggesting that when we have criminals or the mentally ill killing everyone present because they don’t have the ability to fight a wall of lead, we throw up or hands, give up and say “Life’s tough, and only the strong survive”?

 

They might be able to come in my house and kill us, but probably not without a gun.

 

I’m thinking that removing some of the confidentiality protection of the mentally ill that have been diagnosed as being potentially violent might work better than gun control. Am I all messed up in that line of thinking?

 

Gun control messes up my basic belief that the only way to stop an active shooter is with an active shooter.

[mikegideon]

You can’t prevent people from attacking each other. But are you suggesting that when we have criminals or the mentally ill killing everyone present because they don’t have the ability to fight a wall of lead, we throw up or hands, give up and say “Life’s tough, and only the strong survive”?

 

They might be able to come in my house and kill us, but probably not without a gun.

 

I’m thinking that removing some of the confidentiality protection of the mentally ill that have been diagnosed as being potentially violent might work better than gun control. Am I all messed up in that line of thinking?

 

Gun control messes up my basic belief that the only way to stop an active shooter is with an active shooter.

Maybe I wasn't clear. If you want to stop an attack, you put up armed resistance. I don't think removing privacy policy will survive a court challenge. Libtard disease won't let EITHER happen, so they would prefer to eliminate guns. Drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's only the mother's place to speculate on who she bought the guns for, ans she is dead, also, so what is the purpose

of speculating about that. Did she have a death wish? I doubt it. There are many things that was wrong with this guy and

it all came to a head, but it was the guy's fault, regardless.

 

There is always an attempt at a knee jerk law to "protect" us from these bad weapons and will not address the root cause.