19 elementary school children killed in mass shooting.

First topic message reminder :

Bloody hell.

At least 14 schoolchildren and one teacher have been killed in a shooting at a primary school in the US state of Texas, Governor Greg Abbott said, in the latest mass shooting in the United States.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Abbott said an 18-year-old gunman opened fire at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, a small community just over an hour west of San Antonio.

He shot and killed – horrifically, incomprehensibly – 14 students and killed one teacher,” Abbott said.

Abbott said the gunman was himself killed, apparently by police officers responding to the scene.

“The shooter was … an 18-year-old male who resided in Uvalde. It is believed that he abandoned his vehicle and entered into the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde with a handgun and he may have also had a rifle, but that is not yet confirmed,” the governor said.

Local police earlier said the shooting began at around noon local time (17:00 GMT).




https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/24/14-children-1-teacher-killed-in-texas-school-shooting-governor

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ehhhh...I think it is.  Texas is proof.  I mean...they keep electing Republicans, and their elected officials keep screwing them.

I feel sorry for them.  Their ideology locks them out of good, responsible government.  They're not getting their money's worth.

The four largest cities and counties in Texas are run by democrats.

But...the legislature passes the laws, and it is Republican.  So is governor Abbott, lieutenant governor Dan Patrick and Attorney General, Ken Paxton (a Trumpster, btw) – all Republicans.  Urban areas are typically liberal, as large cities have more middle to lower income households in their district.  Look at Georgia, where the largest middle to lower income strata is in Atlanta.  While Houston is the 4th-largest city in the US, the other three urban areas in Texas - Dallas/Ft. Worth SMSA, San Antonio SMSA and Austin SMSA - are lightweights.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_metropolitan_areas

Texas is a largely rural state, where Republicans predominate.  Texans keep electing Republicans at the state level, and elected Republicans keep passing laws promoted by the NRA.

Call it the trickle-down theory of state politics in a rural state: you get what you pay for!  And presently, the NRA has the most money, and has found the right pockets to put it in.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The four largest cities and counties in Texas are run by democrats.

But...the legislature passes the laws, and it is Republican.  So is governor Abbott, lieutenant governor Dan Patrick and Attorney General, Ken Paxton (a Trumpster, btw) – all Republicans.  Urban areas are typically liberal, as large cities have more middle to lower income households in their district.  Look at Georgia, where the largest middle to lower income strata is in Atlanta.  While Houston is the 4th-largest city in the US, the other three urban areas in Texas - Dallas/Ft. Worth SMSA, San Antonio SMSA and Austin SMSA - are lightweights.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_metropolitan_areas

Texas is a largely rural state, where Republicans predominate.  Texans keep electing Republicans at the state level, and elected Republicans keep passing laws promoted by the NRA.

Call it the trickle-down theory of state politics in a rural state: you get what you pay for!  And presently, the NRA has the most money, and has found the right pockets to put it in.

Texas has 5 of the largest cities in the US .

5 of the top 12.

Your daughter lives between 2 of them in an extremely red and non rural area.

Don't you ever come visit her, or are you not welcome?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But...the legislature passes the laws, and it is Republican. So is governor Abbott, lieutenant governor Dan Patrick and Attorney General, Ken Paxton (a Trumpster, btw) – all Republicans. Urban areas are typically liberal, as large cities have more middle to lower income households in their district. Look at Georgia, where the largest middle to lower income strata is in Atlanta. While Houston is the 4th-largest city in the US, the other three urban areas in Texas - Dallas/Ft. Worth SMSA, San Antonio SMSA and Austin SMSA - are lightweights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_metropolitan_areas

Texas is a largely rural state, where Republicans predominate. Texans keep electing Republicans at the state level, and elected Republicans keep passing laws promoted by the NRA.

Call it the trickle-down theory of state politics in a rural state: you get what you pay for! And presently, the NRA has the most money, and has found the right pockets to put it in.

Texas has 5 of the largest cities in the US .

5 of the top 12.

Your daughter lives between 2 of them in an extremely red and non rural area.

Don't you ever come visit her, or are you not welcome?

Well, Dallas and Ft. Worth are generally grouped together as a single SMSA. If you break them apart, that makes 5 major cities in Texas. But, other than jurisdictionally, you couldn't tell them apart. It's just like Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, or Champaign and Urbana, Illinois. They are a single urban center and the US Census Bureau views them as such.

As far as Southlake is concerned, gated communities don't count as ghettos. Of course they are Republican - their rich!

As far as visiting my daughters, it is hard. They are so spread out. I like seeing any of them, but I confess I am reluctant to visit a southern state. First, southern states have uncivilized laws that worry me – particularly re: firearms; and second, you have to socialize with southerners, and they are generally crackers, and quite unpleasant.

Exceptions to that are Arizona, Utah and southern Nevada, which are not redneck, but are very nice Mormons. I find the LDS quite pleasant, if conservative and highly insular. Since the LDS church has gotten over its antipathy toward blacks and women, they can be quite pleasant. This doesn't apply to the FLDS, tho, who as their name suggests have not gotten over their racial and gender hang-up's.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Texas has 5 of the largest cities in the US .

5 of the top 12.

Your daughter lives between 2 of them in an extremely red and non rural area.

Don't you ever come visit her, or are you not welcome?  

Well, Dallas and Ft. Worth are generally grouped together as a single SMSA.  If you break them apart, that makes 5 major cities in Texas.  But, other than jurisdictionally, you couldn't tell them apart.  It's just like Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, or Champaign and Urbana, Illinois.  They are a single urban center and the US Census Bureau views them as such.

As far as Southlake is concerned, gated communities don't count as ghettos.  Of course they are Republican - their rich!

As far as visiting my daughters, it is hard.  They are so spread out.  I like seeing any of them, but I confess I am reluctant to visit a southern state.  First, southern states have uncivilized laws that worry me – particularly re: firearms; and second, you have to socialize with southerners, and they are generally crackers, and quite unpleasant.

Exceptions to that are Arizona, Utah and southern Nevada, which are not redneck, but are very nice Mormons.  I find the LDS quite pleasant, if conservative and highly insular.  Since the LDS church has gotten over its antipathy toward blacks and women, they can be quite pleasant.  This doesn't apply to the FLDS, tho, who as their name suggests have not gotten over their racial and gender hang-up's.

Maybe that's why she moved here.

She knew you wouldn't come visit.

Maddog wrote:Maybe that's why she moved here.  

She knew you wouldn't come visit.

No, we've discussed this.  My daughter moved to Dallas because her husband got a promotion - work-related, standard reason for many.

Other than my general dislike of southern states, why would she have the expectation I would not wish come to see her?  I went on trips to New Orleans - where everyone talks freely about "ni--ers" - to visit elder family members even before she moved to Dallas.

New Orleans is deep, deep south, right across the Texas border.  If I can endure that, I can endure anything.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Maybe that's why she moved here.  

She knew you wouldn't come visit.

No, we've discussed this.  My daughter moved to Dallas because her husband got a promotion - work-related, standard reason for many.

Other than my general dislike of southern states, why would she have the expectation I would not wish come to see her?  I went on trips to New Orleans - where everyone talks freely about "ni--ers" - to visit elder family members even before she moved to Dallas.

New Orleans is deep, deep south, right across the Texas border.  If I can endure that, I can endure anything.

She doesn't live in Dallas.

She chose a very red and exclusive town away from the commoners and blue checkmarks.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, we've discussed this.  My daughter moved to Dallas because her husband got a promotion - work-related, standard reason for many.

Other than my general dislike of southern states, why would she have the expectation I would not wish come to see her?  I went on trips to New Orleans - where everyone talks freely about "ni--ers" - to visit elder family members even before she moved to Dallas.

New Orleans is deep, deep south, right across the Texas border.  If I can endure that, I can endure anything.

She doesn't live in Dallas.

I know.  You stated it quite well: "Your daughter lives between 2 of them [cities], in an extremely red and non rural area."  Because of the very population-cluster issue you raise, the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't go by city.  Rather, it rolls cities into sections, called Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's), and largely ignores legal/jurisdictional boundaries.  This allows them (and others using the data) to more accurately measure population density, without being hindered by city boundaries.  That's why areas like Dallas & Ft. Worth, or Minneapolis & St. Paul, get linked together.

Maddog wrote:She chose a very red and exclusive town away from the commoners and blue checkmarks.

She tells me she fancied the ducks on the lake...and the cute lil ducklings in the springtime, trailing behind.  She says it reminded her of Lake Merritt, in California.

Door access: The teacher who left the back door open says she was outside for only a minute, witnessed the crash of Ramos’ vehicle, and went back inside to phone/notify authorities.  She says she closed the door, but it must not have locked allowing access to Ramos.  Query: Why, then, did authorities need a key to enter the building?  How come authorities couldn't just enter freely, like Ramos did?

Police inaction: Police Chief Peter Arredondo has stopped talking to Texas authorities short of answering the question: why did he order the police assault halted, allowing all those children to be killed?  Or, if he's sticking to his story, why did he change the order from ‘active shooter’ to ‘barricaded suspect with a gun’?  Query: In other words, what stopped the progress of police action to prevent Ramos from killing the children?  Was he simply a coward, or did he know something that he's not sharing?  (For his sake, it's a bad time to stop talking.)

Original Quill wrote:Door access: The teacher who left the back door open says she was outside for only a minute, witnessed the crash of Ramos’ vehicle, and went back inside to phone/notify authorities.  She says she closed the door, but it must not have locked allowing access to Ramos.  Query: Why, then, did authorities need a key to enter the building?  How come authorities couldn't just enter freely, like Ramos did?

Police inaction: Police Chief Peter Arredondo has stopped talking to Texas authorities short of answering the question: why did he order the police assault halted, allowing all those children to be killed?  Or, if he's sticking to his story, why did he change the order from ‘active shooter’ to ‘barricaded suspect with a gun’?  Query: In other words, what stopped the progress of police action to prevent Ramos from killing the children?  Was he simply a coward, or did he know something that he's not sharing?  (For his sake, it's a bad time to stop talking.)

They didn't need a key for the building. They needed a key for the classroom.

Two different doors.


The chief fucked up. He's still talking, but very little. He might be a coward, but he wouldn't have been involved in the assault of that classroom anyway. He's the fucking chief.

The Border Patrol eventually went in, without his approval.

Apparently you have multiple agencies that are far from happy with the chief and they are all trying to be "diplomatic".

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Door access: The teacher who left the back door open says she was outside for only a minute, witnessed the crash of Ramos’ vehicle, and went back inside to phone/notify authorities.  She says she closed the door, but it must not have locked allowing access to Ramos.  Query: Why, then, did authorities need a key to enter the building?  How come authorities couldn't just enter freely, like Ramos did?

Police inaction: Police Chief Peter Arredondo has stopped talking to Texas authorities short of answering the question: why did he order the police assault halted, allowing all those children to be killed?  Or, if he's sticking to his story, why did he change the order from ‘active shooter’ to ‘barricaded suspect with a gun’?  Query: In other words, what stopped the progress of police action to prevent Ramos from killing the children?  Was he simply a coward, or did he know something that he's not sharing?  (For his sake, it's a bad time to stop talking.)

They didn't need a key for the building. They needed a key for the classroom.  

Two different doors.

That's not what I heard.  When the feds decided to go in, they needed the key for the door to the outside, which the teacher had formerly left open.

Maddog wrote:The chief fucked up. He's still talking, but very little. He might be a coward, but he wouldn't have been involved in the assault of that classroom anyway. He's the fucking chief.

The Border Patrol eventually went in, without his approval.

Apparently you have multiple agencies that are far from happy with the chief and they are all trying to be "diplomatic".

The chief is playing the old pretend you were asked another question!  What the state authorities said was he wouldn't give an interview.  When asked about it, the chief said I've been in touch with them daily.  Do you see the difference?  

A lawyer would see right away...he is evading 'til the winds die down.

Republicans often play the wait-it-out game all of the time...after a while the public forgets and silence sets in once again.  They know, and use this tactic quite well.  In fact, the Republicans in Congress are playing that game right now...the Senate comes back in a week, and watch: right away they will adjourn for summer recess.  They won't pass any laws...least of all, having to do with guns.

They calculate by the time they return in the fall, the public will have forgotten this mass shooting and they can go back to screaming: they want to take your guns...your precious guns!

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They didn't need a key for the building. They needed a key for the classroom.  

Two different doors.

That's not what I heard.  When the feds decided to go in, they needed the key for the door to the outside, which the teacher had formerly left open.

Maddog wrote:The chief fucked up. He's still talking, but very little. He might be a coward, but he wouldn't have been involved in the assault of that classroom anyway. He's the fucking chief.

The Border Patrol eventually went in, without his approval.

Apparently you have multiple agencies that are far from happy with the chief and they are all trying to be "diplomatic".

The chief is playing the old pretend you were asked another question!  What the state authorities said was he wouldn't give an interview.  When asked about it, the chief said I've been in touch with them daily.  Do you see the difference?  

A lawyer would see right away...he is evading 'til the winds die down.

Republicans often play the wait-it-out game all of the time...after a while the public forgets and silence sets in once again.  They know, and use this tactic quite well.  In fact, the Republicans in Congress are playing that game right now...the Senate comes back in a week, and watch: right away they will adjourn for summer recess.  They won't pass any laws...least of all, having to do with guns.

They calculate by the time they return in the fall, the public will have forgotten this mass shooting and they can go back to screaming: they want to take your guns...your precious guns!

You heard wrong. Or probably just didn't understand..

The cops were in and out of the building.

It was the fucking door to the classroom that was locked

That's the one they should have breached an hour before they did.

According to the Express-News, Arredondo had been incident commander during Tuesday’s shooting. He was in charge of the 19 officers who were in the hallway, the Express-News said. The newspaper said Arredondo had been trained in active-shooting situations with at least one previous department.



https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/southwest/who-was-uvalde-schools-police-chief-who-made-wrong-call/

And, you have no idea what party the Chief is a member of.

Bringing up parties without knowing the affiliation of the people you are discussing is idiotic and childish..

Or true to your usual form.

Maddog wrote:And, you have no idea what party the Chief is a member of.

Odds are, in Texas, he's a Republican.

Maddog wrote:Bringing up parties without knowing the affiliation of the people you are discussing is idiotic and childish..

Why?  Are you covering for Republicans?  You certainly seem to be wasting a lot of energy protecting the gun-toting persuasion.

Nine-tenths of the situation in Texas is because of the Republican-led government, and the laws they pass.  The individual minutiae surrounding the shootings themselves, while chilling, are not nearly as important as the acts of Republicans, who facilitate these shootings.

Guns do kill people, and the stories of those who pull the triggers just add a bit of color to the separate narratives.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:And, you have no idea what party the Chief is a member of.

Odds are, in Texas, he's a Republican.

Maddog wrote:Bringing up parties without knowing the affiliation of the people you are discussing is idiotic and childish..

Why?  Are you covering for Republicans?  You certainly seem to be wasting a lot of energy protecting the gun-toting persuasion.

Nine-tenths of the situation in Texas is because of the Republican-led government, and the laws they pass.  The individual minutiae surrounding the shootings themselves, while chilling, are not nearly as important as the acts of Republicans, who facilitate these shootings.

Guns do kill people, and the stories of those who pull the triggers just add a bit of color to the separate narratives.

That part of Texas has a lot of democrat representation.

It's not where your daughter lives.

You know the one you never visit.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Odds are, in Texas, he's a Republican.



Why?  Are you covering for Republicans?  You certainly seem to be wasting a lot of energy protecting the gun-toting persuasion.

Nine-tenths of the situation in Texas is because of the Republican-led government, and the laws they pass.  The individual minutiae surrounding the shootings themselves, while chilling, are not nearly as important as the acts of Republicans, who facilitate these shootings.

Guns do kill people, and the stories of those who pull the triggers just add a bit of color to the separate narratives.

That part of Texas has a lot of democrat representation.

It's not where your daughter lives.

You know the one you never visit.

But in the end, Texas is a red state...always was, always is. They vote for guns, and guns kill.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That part of Texas has a lot of democrat representation.

It's not where your daughter lives.

You know the one you never visit.

But in the end, Texas is a red state...always was, always is.  They vote for guns, and guns kill.

We aren't talking about "in the end".

We are talking about specific people who haven't declared a particular party, in a part of the state pretty equally divided with Dem and Rep representation.

You're just pulling shit out of your ass as you don't know any better.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But in the end, Texas is a red state...always was, always is.  They vote for guns, and guns kill.

We aren't talking about "in the end".

We are talking about specific people who haven't declared a particular party, in a part of the state pretty equally divided with Dem and Rep representation.

You're just pulling shit out of your ass as you don't know any better.  

Well, the only relevant discussion about guns is, why have them?  We can get into the trivia about details of stories - which door did the key open, or whether the Chief of Police is avoiding an explanation of his poor performance - but those are frivolities compared to the real problem here.  And that is: too many guns, too freely available in the US.

The explanation that I hear from you is some trite drama or skit about 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys', and how the good guys have guns, and shoot down the bad guy.  But, in all the time we have been having those discussions that has happened on only one occasion.  The hundreds of other times, it has been one guy shooting up a defenseless bunch of school kids, or shoppers, or workers in a post office or church goers, etc.  The good guy with a gun never shows up, so we can't count on him.  If he does appear, he is accidentally shooting a family member, or involved some road rage incident in which he's shooting it out with another motorist, and his grandmother gets killed.

Forget your fiction about 'good guy' vs. 'bad guy', and other TV movie plots.  Simply outlaw guns.  Yes, people, not guns, are responsible for gun deaths...but they will be a lot less responsible if they can't get their hands on a gun.  Guns don't kill people...and we can say the same thing about nuclear weapons.  But you don't see 'open-carry' of nukes on Texas streets, and that's because they are outlawed.

It seems the only thing we can rely on is...get the guns off the streets!  Take the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution, collect all the guns, and make them illegal.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We aren't talking about "in the end".

We are talking about specific people who haven't declared a particular party, in a part of the state pretty equally divided with Dem and Rep representation.

You're just pulling shit out of your ass as you don't know any better.  

Well, the only relevant discussion about guns is, why have them?  We can get into the trivia about details of stories - which door did the key open, or whether the Chief of Police is avoiding an explanation of his poor performance - but those are frivolities compared to the real problem here.  And that is: too many guns, too freely available in the US.

The explanation that I hear from you is some trite drama or skit about 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys', and how the good guys have guns, and shoot down the bad guy.  But, in all the time we have been having those discussions that has happened on only one occasion.  The hundreds of other times, it has been one guy shooting up a defenseless bunch of school kids, or shoppers, or workers in a post office or church goers, etc.  The good guy with a gun never shows up, so we can't count on him.  If he does appear, he is accidentally shooting a family member, or involved some road rage incident in which he's shooting it out with another motorist, and his grandmother gets killed.

Forget your fiction about 'good guy' vs. 'bad guy', and other TV movie plots.  Simply outlaw guns.  Yes, people, not guns, are responsible for gun deaths...but they will be a lot less responsible if they can't get their hands on a gun.  Guns don't kill people...and we can say the same thing about nuclear weapons.  But you don't see 'open-carry' of nukes on Texas streets, and that's because they are outlawed.

It seems the only thing we can rely on is...get the guns off the streets!  Take the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution, collect all the guns, and make them illegal.

So dragging up all of the nonsense that you did was a waste of time.

Agreed.

Maddog wrote:So dragging up all of the nonsense that you did was a waste of time.

Agreed.

Well, there are two themes running through this thread: 1) the mendacity of Republicans - their tactic of hiding and deceiving the public; and 2) the imminent need for controls on firearms in the US.

I chose the most important one of the two: "Well, the only relevant discussion about guns is, why have them?" To waste time going into all the trivia of Republican political tactics, when they are only going to come back with a different version, and babies are being killed, seemed to be misplaced.

Within the span of two weeks, 33 lives have been sacrificed to the false fantasies of the gun culture. So, "dragging up all of the nonsense" of Republican deception, when we've got bigger fish to fry, seemed to make my choice for me. We can talk about lying Republicans another time.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:So dragging up all of the nonsense that you did was a waste of time.

Agreed.

Well, there are two themes running through this thread: 1) the mendacity of Republicans - their tactic of hiding and deceiving the public; and 2) the imminent need for controls on firearms in the US.

I chose the most important one of the two: "Well, the only relevant discussion about guns is, why have them?"  To waste time going into all the trivia of Republican political tactics, when they are only going to come back with a different version, and babies are being killed, seemed to be misplaced.

Within the span of two weeks, 33 lives have been sacrificed to the false fantasies of the gun culture.  So, "dragging up all of the nonsense" of Republican deception, when we've got bigger fish to fry, seemed to make my choice for me.  We can talk about lying Republicans another time.

There are themes running through your head.

You tend to torture everyone else with them.

This thread is no different.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, there are two themes running through this thread: 1) the mendacity of Republicans - their tactic of hiding and deceiving the public; and 2) the imminent need for controls on firearms in the US.

I chose the most important one of the two: "Well, the only relevant discussion about guns is, why have them?"  To waste time going into all the trivia of Republican political tactics, when they are only going to come back with a different version, and babies are being killed, seemed to be misplaced.

Within the span of two weeks, 33 lives have been sacrificed to the false fantasies of the gun culture.  So, "dragging up all of the nonsense" of Republican deception, when we've got bigger fish to fry, seemed to make my choice for me.  We can talk about lying Republicans another time.

There are themes running through your head.

You tend to torture everyone else with them.

This thread is no different.

I don't think so...not when every newspaper in the English-speaking world is making headlines about those themes - not when the president of the US goes on national airwaves, to speak about those themes.  If it is torture for others to hear them, imagine what those 19-dead Uvalde children are tortured by, + the two teachers who tried to shelter the babes with their bodies...imagine what 10-dead persons in Buffalo are tortured by...imagine what 4-dead persons in Tulsa are tortured by.  And there are others in Parkland, and Sandy Hook and Las Vegas, and leave some room for their all their relatives to grieve in torture.  And it all happens because certain Americans want their toys - toys that kill.

As a conservative gun-lover, you don't want to talk about those themes.  Like all conservatives - Republicans, mainly, in this country - you want to change the subject - just don't talk about it! **bangs fist on table** (read as: change the subject - which is how we got on the topic of the deceit of the Uvalde Police Chief and locks to which door?).

So, you create another fabrication, more direct this time, and say no one wants to hear it!  But the facts belie you.  Everyone is talking about it.  Is it possible that you and those like you, are not so much tortured, but embarrassed by the subject?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are themes running through your head.

You tend to torture everyone else with them.

This thread is no different.

I don't think so...not when every newspaper in the English-speaking world is making headlines about those themes - not when the president of the US goes on national airwaves, to speak about those themes.  If it is torture for others to hear them, imagine what those 19-dead Uvalde children are tortured by, + the two teachers who tried to shelter the babes with their bodies...imagine what 10-dead persons in Buffalo are tortured by...imagine what 4-dead persons in Tulsa are tortured by.  And there are others in Parkland, and Sandy Hook and Las Vegas, and leave some room for their all their relatives to grieve in torture.  And it all happens because certain Americans want their toys - toys that kill.

As a conservative gun-lover, you don't want to talk about those themes.  Like all conservatives - Republicans, mainly, in this country - you want to change the subject - just don't talk about it! **bangs fist on table** (read as: change the subject - which is how we got on the topic of the deceit of the Uvalde Police Chief and locks to which door?).

So, you create another fabrication, more direct this time, and say no one wants to hear it!  But the facts belie you.  Everyone is talking about it.  Is it possible that you and those like you, are not so much tortured, but embarrassed by the subject?

I discuss the topic all of the time.

I just dont have much respect for you as a human, and won't invest much time in it.

So I'll fuck with you now and then and discuss serious matters with a better class of humans that I can find elsewhere.

Maybe a better class of human wouldn't be so mean on a forum...just a thought.

Maddog wrote:I discuss the topic all of the time.

I just dont have much respect for you as a human, and won't invest much time in it.  

So I'll fuck with you now and then and discuss serious matters with a better class of humans that I can find elsewhere.  

So, your animosity for me is greater than your enthusiasm for guns.  Well at least we've identified one thing that shuts you up.  Now, if we can get Republicans in Congress to be so distracted, maybe we can eventually outlaw guns in the US.

I've been thinking about the association of guns with America, and the closing of the frontier comes to mind:

History - Notes wrote:In 1890, the Census Bureau broadcast the closure of the frontier, meaning that in the west there was no apparent tracts of land without settlers. This news was a distinguished event in American history; the frontier represented danger because of the Natives who lived in the region but also freedom and opportunity. The frontier also had a limitless aspect upon which Americans could extend their institutions and democracy through Manifest Destiny.

The frontier had become a safety valve for the American people, and when tough economic times hit the southern and northern regions, people occupied the frontier to start over. In 1893 Fredrick Turner wrote an essay entitled “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” regarding America’s westward expansion. In his paper he argued that the hardship in the early days of the frontier, coupled with the American democratic institutions, fostered self-reliance and individualism that led to the rise of a society different from the rest of Europe although originating from Europe. However, the historical account has been dismissed as revisionist in failing to acknowledge the impact the westward settlements had on Native Indians who were decimated by diseases introduced by Europeans, massacred in wars and forced to abandon their lifestyle and live in small reservations.

https://schoolhistory.co.uk/notes/closing-of-the-frontier-impact/#:~:text=In%201890%2C%20the%20Census%20Bureau,but%20also%20freedom%20and%20opportunity.

The closing of the American frontier meant more than economic difficulties and moving on.  It also meant growing up.  It meant you could no longer play boyish games, and play with dangerous toys: as the frontier closed, so did your irresponsibility.

The 2nd Amendment was not put there for 'freedom from tyranny'.  The 2nd Amendment was inserted in the Constitution out of a fear that the slaves would rise up against us.  The 2nd Amendment was knowledge that what the south was doing was wrong, and assurance that we would be prepared in case the havoc we created blew up in our face.  Slavery has now been outlawed, and it's time we removed some of the vestiges of it's existence.  Guns were assured in our Constitution so we would be prepared when our deeds came back to haunt us; now the 2nd Amendment exists without purpose, so we invent romantic fictions, and kill babies in order to justify it.

But we don't wanna give up our toys.  So, we invent TV plots about good and bad guys, and use the plots to justify our playing with our toys.  We fancy ourselves to be batman, stopping crime wherever it appears.  But in reality, all we are doing is allowing disturbed persons to kill babies in our unprotected schools.  This is simply a teen-aged boy who doesn't want to grow up.  For the country, this is a nation who doesn't want another aspect of the frontier to close.

Like the teen-aged boy, the country has to grow up.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:I discuss the topic all of the time.

I just dont have much respect for you as a human, and won't invest much time in it.  

So I'll fuck with you now and then and discuss serious matters with a better class of humans that I can find elsewhere.  

So, your animosity for me is greater than your enthusiasm for guns.  Well at least we've identified one thing that shuts you up.  Now, if we can get Republicans in Congress to be so distracted, maybe we can eventually outlaw guns in the US.

I've been thinking about the association of guns with America, and the closing of the frontier comes to mind:

History - Notes wrote:In 1890, the Census Bureau broadcast the closure of the frontier, meaning that in the west there was no apparent tracts of land without settlers. This news was a distinguished event in American history; the frontier represented danger because of the Natives who lived in the region but also freedom and opportunity. The frontier also had a limitless aspect upon which Americans could extend their institutions and democracy through Manifest Destiny.

The frontier had become a safety valve for the American people, and when tough economic times hit the southern and northern regions, people occupied the frontier to start over. In 1893 Fredrick Turner wrote an essay entitled “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” regarding America’s westward expansion. In his paper he argued that the hardship in the early days of the frontier, coupled with the American democratic institutions, fostered self-reliance and individualism that led to the rise of a society different from the rest of Europe although originating from Europe. However, the historical account has been dismissed as revisionist in failing to acknowledge the impact the westward settlements had on Native Indians who were decimated by diseases introduced by Europeans, massacred in wars and forced to abandon their lifestyle and live in small reservations.

https://schoolhistory.co.uk/notes/closing-of-the-frontier-impact/#:~:text=In%201890%2C%20the%20Census%20Bureau,but%20also%20freedom%20and%20opportunity.

The closing of the American frontier meant more than economic difficulties and moving on.  It also meant growing up.  It meant you could no longer play boyish games, and play with dangerous toys: as the frontier closed, so did your irresponsibility.

The 2nd Amendment was not put there for 'freedom from tyranny'.  The 2nd Amendment was inserted in the Constitution out of a fear that the slaves would rise up against us.  The 2nd Amendment was knowledge that what the south was doing was wrong, and assurance that we would be prepared in case the havoc we created blew up in our face.  Slavery has now been outlawed, and it's time we removed some of the vestiges of it's existence.  Guns were assured in our Constitution so we would be prepared when our deeds came back to haunt us; now the 2nd Amendment exists without purpose, so we invent romantic fictions, and kill babies in order to justify it.

But we don't wanna give up our toys.  So, we invent TV plots about good and bad guys, and use the plots to justify our playing with our toys.  We fancy ourselves to be batman, stopping crime wherever it appears.  But in reality, all we are doing is allowing disturbed persons to kill babies in our unprotected schools.  This is simply a teen-aged boy who doesn't want to grow up.  For the country, this is a nation who doesn't want another aspect of the frontier to close.

Like the teen-aged boy, the country has to grow up.

How are you're kids doing?

Talk to them lately?

Maddog wrote:How are you're kids doing?

Talk to them lately?

Is that a threat? If so, it's a chance for others to see how southerners do business.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:How are you're kids doing?

Talk to them lately?

Is that a threat?  If so, it's a chance for others to see how southerners do business.  

Nah, it's called a question you fucking weirdo.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that a threat?  If so, it's a chance for others to see how southerners do business.  

Nah, it's called a question you fucking weirdo.  

Just checking.  The gun-culturalists tend to think they can settle all disputes, and end all questions with violence.

In reality, logical disputes can only be settled by logic.  Factual disputes can only be settled by facts.  Yet, those who make disputes personal, as you do, have the view that eliminating the person is the answer.

As we've seen in the last two weeks, one can never have too much clarity.