Stories That Make You Shake Your Head At The World

[rico]

13 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I'll say this...

If that became the case (and it won't simply because the SCOTUS, in its current makeup, is going to strike down any prohibitive gun legislation) in addition to fentanyl, other drugs, and people flooding unfettered across our border, you could add semi-automatic weapons...

And whose hands would those wind up in? 

Only one major problem at a time.  lol

[Lostin76]

“The call is coming from inside the house.” - reference for the olds on here. 

https://ktla.com/news/nexstar-media-wire/nationworld/california-police-union-director-charged-with-importing-fentanyl-other-opioids/

[Drroogh]

Unprecedented!! After that I’ll be quiet,

[MoyeCowbell]

I'm late to the overall conversation. But I'm happy that it's happening.

While we might not change each other's minds (if we're on the opposing side of an issue, broadly speaking), hopefully everyone is willing to really listen and let others' stances sink in. I know I'm guilty of this too, but there is so much entrenched desire to proclaim one's opinions that we don't allow opposing messages the time and space to truly be received and resonate the way they're intended.

Whether you're pro-gun, anti-gun, this or that, neither side is infallible. That's just a fact. And because of this, there needs to be a little bit of humility to know that through proper discourse we can be exposed to the cracks in our own stances/defenses. This isn't a bad thing. If anything, it shows what we need to work on when presenting our own cases.

The second point I think is worth stating is our collective need to stop taking everything so sensitively. This is for both sides. I think we've lost the ability to take criticism and understand what is actually being said. In an IU sports context, TJD was able to take CMW's critiques of his game and work on his shortcomings. Trayce had to put his ego aside and look at things as objectively as possible. I would hazard to say it worked out pretty well for him (and anyone who's willing to understand that they won't win every argument, but they can still grow/learn regardless).

 

[MoyeCowbell]

10 hours ago, rico said:

I stand by my solution to make schools like military bases or prisons.  Walls, razor wire, electric fences, etc. all the way around them with one entry/exit point with a guard shack.  Or something of that ilk.  Active military men/women being used.  If protecting the kids while at school is the goal then this would greatly go a long way in achieving that.

 

I hope this is tongue-in-cheek, as I have a hard time squaring this argument with those who want to live in a free society, for multiple reasons.

First, and I think/hope the most obvious: by making schools "like" prisons, we are effectively treating our most innocent and precious like they are our (society's) absolute worst. The criminals and bad people who do terrible things should be put away in places with razor wire, electric fences, etc., NOT kids who want to use colored pencils to draw rainbows and spaceships and want to play kickball. Learning in an environment like this will not inspire creativity, trust, love, compassion, empathy or imagination -- all of that will be taken away because they are faced with an oppressive reality that quite literally contains and limits.

Second, say this is the option and it lowers school shootings. Hell, even eliminates them. Will it stop them from happening? Probably not. And so they happen elsewhere. And then we're forced to put up razor wire and electric fences at all churches, all movie theaters, all parks, all gyms, all restaurants, etc. When and where does it end? Not much of a free society, if you ask me.

And we're also assuming the/a government entity has to provide some level of control, either through active military involvement or allocation of financial resources. So the same government that the people want to keep from intervening in their lives, becomes more so.

Lastly, and perhaps most important, all of talk of fortification is reactionary. It's not forward thinking. Please, please don't take this as a personal attack, but it's lazy. It's not addressing the need to change behavior. It's accepting it and allowing it to happen again. Real change is being proactive. Trying things that we haven't done before, because what we have allowed to happen simply isn't working. 

[rico]

23 minutes ago, MoyeCowbell said:

I hope this is tongue-in-cheek, as I have a hard time squaring this argument with those who want to live in a free society, for multiple reasons.

First, and I think/hope the most obvious: by making schools "like" prisons, we are effectively treating our most innocent and precious like they are our (society's) absolute worst. The criminals and bad people who do terrible things should be put away in places with razor wire, electric fences, etc., NOT kids who want to use colored pencils to draw rainbows and spaceships and want to play kickball. Learning in an environment like this will not inspire creativity, trust, love, compassion, empathy or imagination -- all of that will be taken away because they are faced with an oppressive reality that quite literally contains and limits.

Second, say this is the option and it lowers school shootings. Hell, even eliminates them. Will it stop them from happening? Probably not. And so they happen elsewhere. And then we're forced to put up razor wire and electric fences at all churches, all movie theaters, all parks, all gyms, all restaurants, etc. When and where does it end? Not much of a free society, if you ask me.

And we're also assuming the/a government entity has to provide some level of control, either through active military involvement or allocation of financial resources. So the same government that the people want to keep from intervening in their lives, becomes more so.

Lastly, and perhaps most important, all of talk of fortification is reactionary. It's not forward thinking. Please, please don't take this as a personal attack, but it's lazy. It's not addressing the need to change behavior. It's accepting it and allowing it to happen again. Real change is being proactive. Trying things that we haven't done before, because what we have allowed to happen simply isn't working. 

Trying to protect the kids in a screwed up world.  And with your comments I will bow out of this conversation with my "guns" in tow.

[MoyeCowbell]

29 minutes ago, rico said:

Trying to protect the kids in a screwed up world.  And with your comments I will bow out of this conversation with my "guns" in tow.

We both want to protect the kids. As a dad, there isn't anything more important to me. 

Stinks that my comments are driving you away (from this topic)... I'm not trying to grandstand, but understand.

[mrflynn03]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:08 PM, 5fouls said:

Yes. They were.  But, they were not readily available to the general public as they are today.  And, please understand, I'm not dismissing the mental health component of this.  But, I would think we can all agree it would be easier to restrict the sale of automatic weapons than it would be to cure someone with mental illness.

Actually they were readily available.

In 1934 the NFA was passed which required registration of automatic weapons. Until then you could buy them anywhere. 

In 1968 the GCA was passed. Up until then you could get guns through mail order and there was no disqualifier for felonies. 

In 1986 FOPA was passed. The Hughes amendment to that bill banned the new manufacture of automatics for civilians. You can still buy from what's on the registry.

The Brady bill was passed in 1993 creating the NICS background check system and that wasn't implemented until 1998. 

The 1994 AWB didn't ban anything.  Semi autos could only be in certain configurations and it required lower receivers to be constructed to prevent conversion.  

The AR15 stands for Armalite Rifle model 15 and was designed in 1956 and began production in 1959 marketed to civilians and law enforcement.  The military didn't adopt and modify the design until 1962. 

Those are just highlights but the fact is guns have always been there and been readily available and even easier to get in the past. 

Something has changed in the last 20 years and it's not the guns. 

I have my ideas, internet, social media, video games, movies, TV, news. How about put common sense restrictions on the 1st amendment.  Words are just as dangerous as weapons. Here's an idea, create a social media screening process like NICS. If you are under 18 you can't have an account or participate in any way. 

Edited March 31, 2023 by mrflynn03

[mrflynn03]

On 3/28/2023 at 11:50 AM, rico said:

What's the solution when maniacs start blowing up schools with bombs?

Not really sure. 

Ever heard of this?

Bath School Bomb

[IUFLA]

On 3/30/2023 at 6:57 PM, MoyeCowbell said:

I'm late to the overall conversation. But I'm happy that it's happening.

While we might not change each other's minds (if we're on the opposing side of an issue, broadly speaking), hopefully everyone is willing to really listen and let others' stances sink in. I know I'm guilty of this too, but there is so much entrenched desire to proclaim one's opinions that we don't allow opposing messages the time and space to truly be received and resonate the way they're intended.

Whether you're pro-gun, anti-gun, this or that, neither side is infallible. That's just a fact. And because of this, there needs to be a little bit of humility to know that through proper discourse we can be exposed to the cracks in our own stances/defenses. This isn't a bad thing. If anything, it shows what we need to work on when presenting our own cases.

The second point I think is worth stating is our collective need to stop taking everything so sensitively. This is for both sides. I think we've lost the ability to take criticism and understand what is actually being said. In an IU sports context, TJD was able to take CMW's critiques of his game and work on his shortcomings. Trayce had to put his ego aside and look at things as objectively as possible. I would hazard to say it worked out pretty well for him (and anyone who's willing to understand that they won't win every argument, but they can still grow/learn regardless).

 

I read this quote a few times, and while I may be missing the point, I thought I would at least try to explain my way of thinking...

First, the ONLY way to restrict the sale of semi-automatic rifles in this country, would be either a Constitutional Amendment or a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Amendment requires a "Super Majority" (66%) in BOTH the House and the Senate, and then ratification by 75% (38) states. A Constitutional Cnvention can be called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. No amendment to the Constitution has ever gone through that process...The Founding Fathers made the process difficult for a reason. 

Short of that, the President could attempt an Executive Action, but that would immediately be tied up in the courts, and the Supreme Court, in its current makeup, would strike it down.

Even if the Court were more slanted to the left or "packed" as some have suggested doing, it is not the duty of the court to enact laws, it is their duty to interpret laws and the Constitution...and the framers were very clear in their intent  when fashioning the 2nd Amendment...

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

So you can see how difficult that process would be...

So let's more concern ourselves with what CAN be done at this juncture...

U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) will be introducing the Securing Aid for Every (SAFE) School Act. The SAFE School Act establishes a $900 million grant program that will allow both public and private schools to train and hire veterans and former law enforcement officers to serve as school safety officers, hire off duty law enforcement officers, and provide funding to harden schools and increase physical security. 

Personally, I think more of that money should be steered toward hardening the targets...If Audrey Hale hadn't been able to shoot out the door windows of the school, how would she have obtained access? Bulletproof all doors and windows. Increase surveillance equipment. I don't necessarily think you neen a physical barrier, like a fence, but if that's deemed a deterrent, use money there as well...

Leaning on the pdf file provided by @HoosierFaithful, put some of the money into teacher training toward appropriate behavioral interventions focusing on positive behavioral interventions (that could also extend to SROs). But at the same time, make the removal of disruptive or law breaking students possible so the kids that are there to learn can. If a student is disruptive too often, put them in a alternative school like the state of Illinois does...The staff and faculty are more well trained in behavior interventions, while focusing on getting kids to the finish line for their high school diplomas.

SROs in a normal public school should only be for the safety of the students and the staff. No harsh, aversive
behavioral interventions for dealing with challenging student behavior. Establish National Training Guidelines for SROs. Have qualified personnel on hand to deal with interventions.

As I said, I think the most important thing we can do is keep ANY firearms out of the hands of someone who's mentally challenged. I've already proposed tying in medical records to background checks including any and all prescription medicines taken in the prior 6 months, and having anyone over 18 but less than 21 needing a "co-signer" that would take on the co-responsibility of owning and using an AR-15 or other semi-automatic rifle... 

I think some of you think I'm a military slanted gun nut who owns semi-automatic weapons because it makes me look tough, or "just because I can" or whatever...

I'm a reasonable man. I've raised 3 daughters to adulthood, and I would be absolutely devastated if something like this happened to them or one of my grandchildren...Devastated...

But I've also recognized that a life without freedoms isn't much of a life...And the first step in protecting those freedoms is me...The individual...be it from protecting my home against an individual invasion, or an invasion of a more serious kind...

So there are my proposals...My olive branch...Know that banning weapons is a non-starter for the reasons stated above for me and millions of other of your fellow countrymen...

I'm all for constructive dialogue, and I think what I've proposed fits that bill...

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by IUFLA

[Drroogh]

14 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

 

As I said, I think the most important thing we can do is keep ANY firearms out of the hands of someone who's mentally challenged. I've already proposed tying in medical records to background checks including any and all prescription medicines taken in the prior 6 months, and having anyone over 18 but less than 21 needing a "co-signer" that would take on the co-responsibility of owning and using an AR-15 or other semi-automatic rifle... 

I

I'm all for constructive dialouge, and I think what I've proposed fita that bill...

 

Great post, but unfortunately I think there will need to be big changes in the HIPPA laws for the above to be effective!

Perhaps databases that are sandboxes. Doctors, mental health professionals institutions could put a flag on someone so that anyone doing a background check would only see the flag not the reason! 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

[mrflynn03]

One of the reasons gun control is difficult is because one side wants "compromise".  What they actually want is capitulation.

Here would be a potential compromise.  Lift Herbert Walker Bush's 1989 import ban. 

In exchange semi auto rifles have to go through the NFA process without a change in fees. But the ATF would have to dedicate agents to processing applications so it doesn't take 9 months like now. That would put stricter scrutiny on potential owners and also take a lot of agents out of the field.  

The banned rifles are being manufactured domestically anyway but imports are better quality and have collector value.  If a gun owner sets up an NFA trust allow for subsequent purchases without going through the NFA process.  

If that's not enough then throw in universal background checks. 

[Reacher]

The Chinese Spy Balloon was worse than we thought-

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/china-spy-balloon-collected-intelligence-us-military-bases-rcna77155

[mrflynn03]

On 4/3/2023 at 1:46 PM, Reacher said:

The Chinese Spy Balloon was worse than we thought-

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/china-spy-balloon-collected-intelligence-us-military-bases-rcna77155

Worse for those who had their head planted in their ass anyway. 😁

Edited April 5, 2023 by mrflynn03

[IUFLA]

On 4/3/2023 at 12:46 PM, Reacher said:

The Chinese Spy Balloon was worse than we thought-

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/china-spy-balloon-collected-intelligence-us-military-bases-rcna77155

"The three officials said China could have gathered much more intelligence from sensitive sites if not for the administration’s efforts to move around potential targets and obscure the balloon’s ability to pick up their electronic signals by stopping them from broadcasting or emitting signals."

Or by shooting it out of the sky the minute it entered the ADIZ

[RoadToZion]

9 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

"The three officials said China could have gathered much more intelligence from sensitive sites if not for the administration’s efforts to move around potential targets and obscure the balloon’s ability to pick up their electronic signals by stopping them from broadcasting or emitting signals."

Or by shooting it out of the sky the minute it entered the ADIZ

This is what we get for having Soy Boys in charge.

[mrflynn03]

9 minutes ago, RoadToZion said:

This is what we get for having Soy Boys in charge.

Using the term boys rather loosely. How dare you assume. 

[Drroogh]

17 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

"The three officials said China could have gathered much more intelligence from sensitive sites if not for the administration’s efforts to move around potential targets and obscure the balloon’s ability to pick up their electronic signals by stopping them from broadcasting or emitting signals."

Or by shooting it out of the sky the minute it entered the ADIZ

I still can’t comprehend why they needed to fire a multimillion dollar missile when they could of put a few 25mm holes in it? Should have let it descend slowly without the risk of falling debris!

[Drroogh]

Brazil preschool attack

Not to make light of this tragedy, but how far under the rug will the gun control activists sweep this story?

Praying for all those involved!

[Lostin76]

Idiots now boycotting Bud Light. Cracking up over all of these videos of people emptying their fridges - throwing away product they have already purchased like Budweiser cares.

Eventually all of these people will wake up on the wrong side of history and realize, “Oh, wait I’m the a#*hole?” 

[Reacher]

1 hour ago, Lostin76 said:

Idiots now boycotting Bud Light. Cracking up over all of these videos of people emptying their fridges - throwing away product they have already purchased like Budweiser cares.

Eventually all of these people will wake up on the wrong side of history and realize, “Oh, wait I’m the a#*hole?” 

I don't drink Bud products so I don't have a horse in this race. Not sure why this has you triggered. Liberals and conservatives have both been boycotting companies they don't feel align with their interests. Heck, CA even boycotted other states. I recall boycotts of Target (by the right), Chik Fil A and MyPillow (by the left) in years past. Nothing new here. 

[Lostin76]

20 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I don't drink Bud products so I don't have a horse in this race. Not sure why this has you triggered. Liberals and conservatives have both been boycotting companies they don't feel align with their interests. Heck, CA even boycotted other states. I recall boycotts of Target (by the right), Chik Fil A and MyPillow (by the left) in years past. Nothing new here. 

Not triggered, just think its funny that they are making all the videos or them throwing away stuff they’ve already bought. And wait until they find out that Coors Light also supports people they are afraid of.
 

I recall the Target stuff and ChickFilA - also silly. My Pillow is a little different. The dude is a wackadoodle traitor, with a niche product of questionable quality. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RoadToZion]

I remember when Libs freaked out over Aunt Jemima Syrup. RIP. 

[mrflynn03]

17 hours ago, Lostin76 said:

Not triggered, just think its funny that they are making all the videos or them throwing away stuff they’ve already bought. And wait until they find out that Coors Light also supports people they are afraid of.
 

I recall the Target stuff and ChickFilA - also silly. My Pillow is a little different. The dude is a wackadoodle traitor, with a niche product of questionable quality. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think people are afraid of them, I'm assuming it's about the pronoun people?  I haven't even seen what this is all about, just what little I've heard. 

My real question is why do people need to seek the validation of others?  I don't give a rats ass what people think of me and therefore can't understand people that care what others think. 

[mrflynn03]

It's fitting it's Bud Light since it's not sure if it's beer.