Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shooting in Texas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    They run the same article every time there is a mass shooting, with just the first two sentences changed to account for the latest details. It's their longest running "joke".
    What sort of thinks that this is funny?
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #77
      There are ways but they are unconstitutional and take decades to be effective. If you believe in law and have not been corrupted by progressivism then the constitution could be amended but that will not address the second problem.

      To those that suggest that the lack of restriction on personal liberties represents a low level of civilization I would suggest caution. The alternatives are more or less authoritarian and represent a regression to previous political systems.

      Gun control in the U.S. is difficult for people in other countries to understand. First you have to consider the nature of a constitutional republic and how that system has been eroded.

      The U.S. legal system is the stepchild of the English common law tradition. The problem is that tradition often is in conflict with our constitutional republic origins. The English tradition has in my opinion enabled or encourage progressivism.

      Many people may believe that progressivism is a recent development associated with leftist ideology but it's roots are deep in American history. Perhaps an example will illustrate it's dangers. The most remarkable progressive in our history may be none other than Teddy Roosevelt. It was not his view that the U.S. had simply a manifest destiny but that a good deal of law should not be allowed to impede that destiny.

      Panama illustrates the progressive mindset adequately. I would agree with Roosevelt that a Canal through the isthmus of Panama was necessary for the economic and military well-being of the U.S. I wouldn't agree that ignoring the sovereignty of Columbia and staging a circumspect "revolution" was the best way to go about achieving that end.

      Many legal traditions have come and gone in the U.S. but the constitution has with few exceptions been preserve. Some of those traditions that have been overturned truly represent progress. Civil rights being an excellent example. But the foundation for civil rights was laid out in the 13th Amendment. It is even the case that the courts by imposing taxation to enable desegregation overshot their constitutional authority. Gun control however is not a case where the conflict between majority rule and individual rights is unavoidable making it necessary to recognize a hierarchy of rights. The constitution tradition is even clearly on the side of gun owners because individual liberty in our tradition always trump's public interest.

      Progressivism itself is in conflict with the traditions of the enlightenment. Liberalism is at it's core about protecting the rights of the individual in opposition to the more collectivist traditions of class distinctions that proceeded it. A constitutional republic is specifically designed to prevent democratic tyrant. There are limitations on what deemed necessary by the majority can be imposed. Progressivism undermines the constitutional republic by making assumed necessity not individual rights the arbiter of legality.

      It is not surprising that countries that lack a constitutional republic form would embrace progressivism. Where you have a strong class rights tradition it is easy to adopt the progressive ideas of collective class rights and democratic tyranny. The protection of individual rights become arbitrary and transient depending on the perceived needs of the majority in the current environment.

      It may very well be that the perception of U.S. gun owners is somewhat accurate. The deplorables may be less well educated than many "liberals". However in the modern world education can induce cognitive dissonance especially when it includes a good deal of subliminal post modernist brain washing. The deplorables in general are not distracted by infinite regression and see things at face value. Three things they are absolutely right about is that the second amendment means unrestricted gun ownership, bureaucrats were not meant to write law, and the way the federal reserve functions is unconstitutional.

      I'm sure many progressive "liberals" are aware that they are not strictly advocating constitutional law. Their progressive mindset however is all about perceived exigencies and faith in their unexamined wisdom. Those traits combined with low conscientiousness is dangerous.

      The second amendment is not out of touch in a modern world and only appears so to progressives because they are already authoritarian. An armed population is just as prepared to resist an authoritarian government as it has ever been. Progressive can not imagine a need for resistance because by and large they are the establishment, the petite nobility, or Marxist authoritarians.

      Authoritarian states give the illusion of advanced civilization but the enlightenment has shown the folly of that perception. The advancement of civilization over the last few centuries has proven the value of true liberal values. Maximum individual freedom, limited government, separation of church and state, meritocracy, etc. not the absence of violence are the hallmarks of advanced civilization in the shadow of the enlightenment.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #78
        FYI: It's surfacing that the church was the one his ex-wife's family attended. He seems to have made a decision to murder his former in-laws.
        "[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

        Comment


        • #79
          This poor mentally ill victim of society was jailed by the Air force for one year, did manhandle his wife and children . And now murdered 26 people .

          A good thing too he is dead(I hope he did suffer ) ,because in Europe he would be considered as a victim of society and treated as such .

          Most mentally ill are not criminals and most criminals are not mentally ill .

          Mentally ill is an excuse invented by the soft on crime liberals to not punish criminals .

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
            This poor mentally ill victim of society was jailed by the Air force for one year, did manhandle his wife and children . And now murdered 26 people .

            A good thing too he is dead(I hope he did suffer ) ,because in Europe he would be considered as a victim of society and treated as such .

            Most mentally ill are not criminals and most criminals are not mentally ill .

            Mentally ill is an excuse invented by the soft on crime liberals to not punish criminals .
            I never said he was a victim or that he shouldn't be punished, but he's not the only mass shooter that clearly has problems. Mental health is an issue because it leads to these tragedies, to homelessness, and other problems. There's no reason you have to browbeat people who want to get at the root of these problems.
            "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

            "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by American87 View Post
              I never said he was a victim or that he shouldn't be punished, but he's not the only mass shooter that clearly has problems. Mental health is an issue because it leads to these tragedies, to homelessness, and other problems. There's no reason you have to browbeat people who want to get at the root of these problems.
              If you ever ghet to the root of the problem, share it.

              I spent thirty-plus years dealing with the mentally ill on at least a weekly basis, and they need all the help they can get.

              But back to this issue, what did he serve the year for?
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                Why is everyone talking about mentally ill, when a CRIMINAL murdered 26 people ?
                Because a normal person wouldn't do such a thing.

                Does that excuse the crime? According to the Progressive Left, yes. For the rest of us, it is not having a bad day, it is not knowing what he was doing, it is not going Postal, it is premeditated murder of the first degree. He knew exactly what he was going to do, knew what could happen to him once he started shooting, prepared for it, and deliberately did it to make a statement.
                “Breaking News,”

                “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  This poor mentally ill victim of society was jailed by the Air force for one year, did manhandle his wife and children . And now murdered 26 people .

                  A good thing too he is dead(I hope he did suffer ) ,because in Europe he would be considered as a victim of society and treated as such .

                  Most mentally ill are not criminals and most criminals are not mentally ill .

                  Mentally ill is an excuse invented by the soft on crime liberals to not punish criminals .
                  President Trump say he was mentally ill.
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    So the mentally ill are not civilized? Are you suggesting they are subn-human somehow?

                    And you are judging an entire nation by the acts of two people?

                    Back on th IL for you. I have no time for racist chatter.
                    Oh the irony....... funny.
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      President Trump say he was mentally ill.
                      I know why he did say this and I disagree with him ,although I can understand the reasons why he did say it .

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                        Because a normal person wouldn't do such a thing.
                        Criminals are NOT abnormal, they are evil : they chose the dark side .Eichmann and Dutroux were not abnormal .

                        It's too easy to label criminals as abnormal, it reassures us : they are abnormal, we will not do it ,because we are normal .

                        Nothing more wrong : everyone of us is a potential Devin Kelley; that's why there is police . Without police, there would be thousands of Devin Kelley .

                        People as Kelley do not shrink from murdering innocent people , but if society (as the soft societies of today) shrink from eliminating people as Kelley, the criminals have won .

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          He is not essentially correct, and Reagan WAS a governor at the time. So, instead of trying to score cheap political points, let's better address the issue with honesty! If you think that doctors and the AMA are liberals, you are mistaken. In addition, the people you mention were STILL talking about treating the mentally ill. It was just going t be in a different setting and way! It was the cost consideration which eventually left many of the mentally ill people untreated in the streets!
                          Reagan may have cut off funding in California for mental hospitals...you do know he's just the Governor, not the King of the state right? It takes a legislature to go along with him to cut funding. But, the nationwide movement to close them didn't start until he was President, or at least didn't go into full swing closures until he was President.

                          Says the person who tried to score political points by bringing up Reagan to begin with.

                          Medical doctors are not psychologists. Different animal. In my experience, most college professors ARE liberals.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                            Criminals are NOT abnormal, they are evil : they chose the dark side .Eichmann and Dutroux were not abnormal .

                            It's too easy to label criminals as abnormal, it reassures us : they are abnormal, we will not do it ,because we are normal .

                            Nothing more wrong : everyone of us is a potential Devin Kelley; that's why there is police . Without police, there would be thousands of Devin Kelley .

                            People as Kelley do not shrink from murdering innocent people , but if society (as the soft societies of today) shrink from eliminating people as Kelley, the criminals have won .
                            You should sell tourist rides inside the jungle of your mind.

                            It's better than a safari

                            everyone of us is a potential Devin Kelley
                            No, really, just you.
                            Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                            Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                              There are ways but they are unconstitutional and take decades to be effective. If you believe in law and have not been corrupted by progressivism then the constitution could be amended but that will not address the second problem.

                              To those that suggest that the lack of restriction on personal liberties represents a low level of civilization I would suggest caution. The alternatives are more or less authoritarian and represent a regression to previous political systems.

                              Gun control in the U.S. is difficult for people in other countries to understand. First you have to consider the nature of a constitutional republic and how that system has been eroded.

                              The U.S. legal system is the stepchild of the English common law tradition. The problem is that tradition often is in conflict with our constitutional republic origins. The English tradition has in my opinion enabled or encourage progressivism.

                              Many people may believe that progressivism is a recent development associated with leftist ideology but it's roots are deep in American history. Perhaps an example will illustrate it's dangers. The most remarkable progressive in our history may be none other than Teddy Roosevelt. It was not his view that the U.S. had simply a manifest destiny but that a good deal of law should not be allowed to impede that destiny.

                              Panama illustrates the progressive mindset adequately. I would agree with Roosevelt that a Canal through the isthmus of Panama was necessary for the economic and military well-being of the U.S. I wouldn't agree that ignoring the sovereignty of Columbia and staging a circumspect "revolution" was the best way to go about achieving that end.

                              Many legal traditions have come and gone in the U.S. but the constitution has with few exceptions been preserve. Some of those traditions that have been overturned truly represent progress. Civil rights being an excellent example. But the foundation for civil rights was laid out in the 13th Amendment. It is even the case that the courts by imposing taxation to enable desegregation overshot their constitutional authority. Gun control however is not a case where the conflict between majority rule and individual rights is unavoidable making it necessary to recognize a hierarchy of rights. The constitution tradition is even clearly on the side of gun owners because individual liberty in our tradition always trump's public interest.

                              Progressivism itself is in conflict with the traditions of the enlightenment. Liberalism is at it's core about protecting the rights of the individual in opposition to the more collectivist traditions of class distinctions that proceeded it. A constitutional republic is specifically designed to prevent democratic tyrant. There are limitations on what deemed necessary by the majority can be imposed. Progressivism undermines the constitutional republic by making assumed necessity not individual rights the arbiter of legality.

                              It is not surprising that countries that lack a constitutional republic form would embrace progressivism. Where you have a strong class rights tradition it is easy to adopt the progressive ideas of collective class rights and democratic tyranny. The protection of individual rights become arbitrary and transient depending on the perceived needs of the majority in the current environment.

                              It may very well be that the perception of U.S. gun owners is somewhat accurate. The deplorables may be less well educated than many "liberals". However in the modern world education can induce cognitive dissonance especially when it includes a good deal of subliminal post modernist brain washing. The deplorables in general are not distracted by infinite regression and see things at face value. Three things they are absolutely right about is that the second amendment means unrestricted gun ownership, bureaucrats were not meant to write law, and the way the federal reserve functions is unconstitutional.

                              I'm sure many progressive "liberals" are aware that they are not strictly advocating constitutional law. Their progressive mindset however is all about perceived exigencies and faith in their unexamined wisdom. Those traits combined with low conscientiousness is dangerous.

                              The second amendment is not out of touch in a modern world and only appears so to progressives because they are already authoritarian. An armed population is just as prepared to resist an authoritarian government as it has ever been. Progressive can not imagine a need for resistance because by and large they are the establishment, the petite nobility, or Marxist authoritarians.

                              Authoritarian states give the illusion of advanced civilization but the enlightenment has shown the folly of that perception. The advancement of civilization over the last few centuries has proven the value of true liberal values. Maximum individual freedom, limited government, separation of church and state, meritocracy, etc. not the absence of violence are the hallmarks of advanced civilization in the shadow of the enlightenment.
                              The ‘right to bear arms’ is actually a carry over from English law and was incorporated in the 1689 Bill of Rights. Restrictions on carrying and ownership of guns only started in 1920.
                              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                                So the mentally ill are not civilized? Are you suggesting they are subn-human somehow?

                                And you are judging an entire nation by the acts of two people?

                                Back on th IL for you. I have no time for racist chatter.
                                This was all in a 40 day period....how many killed country wide last year (2016)...Over 40,000.....how many real life terrorists, excluding the home grown ones, 5 or 6.???.....Great way to run the circus....

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X