Close, but no cigar Rush! Don't mass shootings tend to be committed by conservatives with a "childish" infatuation with guns and their accumulation of a large cash of guns and ammunition. I believe most of these shoots have paranoid delusions, fantastical, a sense of supernatural powers, weak/low self-esteem, weak social skills, and general awkwardness towards others. Rush is nothing but an overstuffed blowhard!
Rush Limbaugh: Mass shooters are all 'liberals' and are 'mentally disturbed'
Quote:Rush Limbaugh: ABC News tried to blame it on the Tea Party. Brian Ross tried to -- they found the guy's name, and the first thing they looked was the local Tea Party roster to see if they could find a name there. They found the same name, a different guy, and Brian Ross goes on Good Morning America and says we think this guy might be a member of the Tea Party.
Caller: Right. So I'm wondering if all this talk about his background and his psychology, I wonder if they haven't unearthed what it was. Because I remember with Jared --
Rush Limbaugh: Well, he was 13.
Caller: He can still have political beliefs. But I remember with Jared Loughner, they said that he was a Republican and it turned out that he was actually quite liberal.
Rush Limbaugh: They all are liberals. If they're mentally disturbed.
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:
Don't mass shootings tend to be committed by conservatives with a "childish" infatuation with guns and their accumulation of a large cash of guns and ammunition.
No, they don't.
Even this latest lunatic can't be described as a "conservative."
@Finn dAbuzz,
So in other words, we arm everyone and then when they start shooting we can tell the good guys from the bad guys.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Don't blame me Finn. You asked "Who is a "good guy?" and I answered it.
"We don't need to go all Sartre" is an assertion. It's one that covers your position but it's still an assertion. It means that you're a good guy. We all know that. The NFL commentators are all good guys too. We are all good guys.
Did you ever see or hear anybody gooder than an NFL commentator? Apart from Florence Nightingale I mean. You can tell that a woman has straightened their ties and dusted their shoulders off just by looking at them.
Didn't I suggest a reason why Mr La Pierre is doing a good job?
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:When a lunatic forces his way into an elementary school intent upon death and mayhem, it's easy to identify the Good Guys from the Bad Guy, and in such a case the kids will be well served if the Good Guy is packing.
That is, if the kids and the school staff are lucky enough not to be hit with the bullets spraying all over the place--including from the gun of the "good guy".
Quote:NRA: “The answer to gun violence is gun fights” – Gun fetishism IS a mental illness
By Eclectablog on December 21, 2012 in Conservatives
Up is down. War is peace.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre just went on national television to tell the country that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” In other words, the only solution to gun violence is gun fights.
LaPierre also said, “I call on Congress, today, to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.”
What LaPierre and all of the other gun fetishists out there are saying to America is that their freakish desire to own and shoot assault weapons that can fire countless rounds without reloading must be preserved at any cost and their solution to the gun violence that results from the presence of these weapons in our communities is to turn our schools into armed camps with armed guards. Every. Single. School.
As so many gun fetishists do, he blamed it on mental illness. Putting aside for a moment that the very people protecting the gun fetishists “rights” have been the ones to eliminate funding for mental health services around the country, why are we not talking about the real mental illness here? Why is it not considered a mental illness to get obscene pleasure from owning and shooting weapon that has only one purpose: to injure or kill human beings.
THAT, I would argue, is a clear sign of mental illness.
One wonders what the impact of having our kids seeing armed people in their schools every single day will have. Does it not send them the message that the world is a dangerous place and that they should be afraid wherever they go? Will that not create even more unstable adults in the long term? Of course it will.
The NRA is losing this battle of ideas in American. The vast majority of us see nothing of value from assault weapons. We don’t need to have our “man card reissued” by owning a gun. We don’t get pleasure from shooting guns. We don’t strive to be Rambo or Dirty Harry. We see guns as something to be diminished in our society, not worshipped or held as more important than our right to safety and freedom from fear.
If you want to argue that the core problem here is mental illness, go right ahead. But never forget this one important fact:
Gun fetishism IS a mental illness.
Adding… The National Center for Education Statistics says that, in the 2009-2010 school year, there were 132,183 public and private K-12 schools in this country. Leave it to the NRA to come up with a solution to gun violence that involves putting over 132,000 new guns into our communities. The mind, it boggles
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/12/nra-the-answer-to-gun-violence-is-gun-fights-gun-fetishism-is-a-mental-illness.html
Guy hit in head with .50 caliber ricochet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc
@Val Killmore,
Val Killmore wrote:
JTT didn't reply to me, so Foofie would you be so kind as to show me where in the constitution does it give someone the right to own slaves.
Only in the sense that the 13th Amendment of the Bill of Rights was needed to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude, so one could believe that prior to that point a slave was personal property. I can't find where personal property was protected by the Constitution; however, it might have been implied in setting up the nation?
The original constitution did not use the words "slave" or "slavery" but it recognized its existence de facto, and dealt with it in three places (remember current versions of the Constitution often don't include clauses no longer operative), which were universally regarded as applying to slaves. For purposes of determining the number of reps in the House each state got, free persons and indentured servants were each counted as 1, Indians weren't taxed and weren't counted. Which left slaves as the only other part of the population which existed, and they were counted as 3/5 of a person. The term used was "person bound to service".. Second, the gov't. was forbidden to interfere with importation of slaves until 1808 (It banned it as soon as it could, in 1808).
And, worst, persons bound to service i.e. slaves, who escaped to a free state did not thereby become free, but had to be returned to their original state--the much=maligned "fugitive slave" clause.
These were compromises that the slave-holding states insisted on if the rest of the country wanted them to stay in it. And the other states went along with it without much show of reluctance.
@firefly,
In appreciation of firefly's postings.
@firefly,
Quote:At a time when the mainstream American media itself is battling over the issue of fiscal cliff, debating the relevance of gun-control laws in the aftermath of shootout inside a school that killed 20 children, newspapers and news channels have been taking a serious note of outburst of the peoples' anger against the rape on the young girl who is battling for her life at a hospital in New Delhi.
Firefly as always you reach the reality, the facts and the hearts.
I just read the above link pertaining to rape, an Indian girl.. Perhaps you'd like to view that and run with that on a thread.. Recently my "son" from India on facebook showed 5 guys hanging now I know why...
@McTag,
Not that this matters but it is stated that all the serial killers in this situation of mass murder are on PROZAC.
And, I believe that all calls of the mental health system failing is therefore to be TRUE.
@firefly,
Quote:No, if he hadn't had his gun he probably wouldn't have followed the kid--who wasn't doing anything to bother him or anyone else--and when the police showed up, both Zimmerman and Martin would both have been alive and uninjured.
If I was on a crime watch armed or not armed I would have legally follow the so call kid myself on the public streets having no reason to think he would turn and attacked me.
Thank god this time bomb waiting to go off did attacked an arm man instead of someone who could not defense him or even herself for that matter.
The person who cause Trayvon death was Trayvon and if he had not attacked someone who at the very worst had annoy him on the public streets he would had still been alive.
@firefly,
Quote:We don’t need to have our “man card reissued” by owning a gun.
Doesn't that imply that the "man card" has been lost? Or felt to have been.
In which case why has it been lost? If it has why does it need re-issuing? If it does need re-issuing what other methods are there?
The Prime Minister of India referred to the imbalance between young men and women in India in his speech about the case FS mentions. Which is a coy way of talking about sexual frustration in young men.
Deep waters indeed.
@firefly,
Quote:That is, if the kids and the school staff are lucky enough not to be hit with the bullets spraying all over the place--including from the gun of the "good guy".
So the risk of friendly fired would be so great that it would be better to just allow a shooter to kill as many people as he care to do so instead of shooting back at him.
Love your logic or lack of same Firefly.
3 officers shot at New Jersey police station
It looks like we need armed guards at police stations too since shootings only happen at gun free zones.
@parados,
Quote:It looks like we need armed guards at police stations too since shootings only happen at gun free zones.
Bullshit and you are playing the Firefly game as I was more then aware myself of that rare very rare very rare happening and even refer to it in postings on this thread
however that is in no way or in no manner change the fact that almost all shootings repeat almost all shootings of the Newtown type happen in gun free zones.In fact in most cases as soon as armed responsers /police showed up at the scene the shooters tend to take there own lives and not engage in a gun battle.
@BillRM,
So you said... but you still haven't provided any evidence that "gun free zones" are where shootings happen that would show anything other than most places are gun free zones to begin with. Colorado is hardly a gun free zone. In fact the law in Colorado allows for guns to be carried in places of business. But somehow you want to declare it was a gun free zone. What evidence do you have to support that?
@parados,
OH and the fact that almost all of them do not enter into gun battles once the police showed up and just killed themselves mean what in your opinion?
@parados,
OH and the fact that almost all of them do not enter into gun battles once the police showed up and just killed themselves mean what in your opinion?
That they are or are not eager to enter into gun battles?
