CDZ Why aren't we addressing the gun issue as a cultural problem?

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Yeah, when I refer to "culture" in this context, I mean the general rules of decency, behavior and standards to which we agree as a "civilized" society.

I get it, but right now, both parties are constantly manipulating the rules suit their purposes. So, if these 'rules' are in an ever constant stage of change, what good are they?

 

[OldLady]

We are skipping over a big part of the answer: Define what a person's liberties are. In no society should it be so easy to kill one another. That should not be a part of a person's "liberties."

Humans are soft and fragile, sometimes it's hard to avoid killing them, especially stupid ones that wander into traffic like AOC would if she didn't have handlers.

Murder would happen a lot less if more people had a belief that the consequences of committing that sin was actually a SIN, and would result in their soul being tormented for eternity.

For whatever reason, having faith in that is somehow a bad thing in our modern society.

It's not the tool that matters, it's the increasing amount of people who are willing to kill and will use whatever means to do so. Take all the guns away, they will use bombs, poison, trucks, blades, or whatever.

.

You might be right, Pete, about the SIN thing. I don't know the answer. I can tell you, though, that although I do not believe in The Big Man Upstairs, I would never consider murder. Ever.

 

[G.T.]

Cultural decay is something old folks have said about young folks for centuries.

It's downright pop-culture itself, at this point.

Meanwhile, in the real world, this "decay" is mostly just...imaginary. Like most things politics...

 

[G.T.]

 

[OldLady]

I don't have a simple legislative answer for the gun problem. There are already ten kazillion guns out there, they're easily accessible by any maniac, so legislating along the fringes can only do so much. Can we do some legislating here and there? Sure, let's look at EVERYTHING. But legislation's efficacy will be limited and long term only.

Obviously, our poisoned political environment is going to slow down (or worse) anything major that we try to do. That appears to be the goal, for some reason. But is it possible for us all to look at this as a cultural issue? WHY is life so cheap now? HOW do people become so radicalized? WHAT pushes a damaged person over that last edge of sanity and turns them into a monster? WHEN can we step in without harming a person's liberties?

And perhaps most importantly, how can we COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE and INNOVATE in this toxic political environment, to SAVE LIVES? Certainly we have to look at entertainment. Certainly we have to look at partisan politics from a macro perspective. Certainly we have to look at the internet. There are some things we all can consider. No?

I think MOST of our problems are cultural, directly or indirectly. This is another example. But we're tying our own hands.
.

And to answer your question (you did ask)...its because politics equals power for a certain group. Americans have been trained, as a diversion, that politics is the answer to everything and greater Federal control equals greater happiness.
They have been trained that philosophical questions or moral questions are irrelevant..only governing questions are relevant.
Brainwashed would be a better description I suppose.
And remember the Democrat motto..."never let a crisis go to waste". If we solved our cultural issues....if we were to succeed even while the liberals attacked viciously to undo whatever efforts we were taking to solve it...then how would they gain?

Beto Orourke is right now in El Paso speaking to, I shit you not, what he is calling his "binational nation". He has been dancing on those graves until he must be exhausted by now. They all have.

You are a smart guy. Take a logical, legal approach. Ask yourself Cui Bono? Who benefits? From the time of Cicero this question has helped men of good will tease out the perp.

El Paso is "binational." You did hear that six or seven of the shoppers killed in WalMart were from across the border in Mexico? People are back and forth from both countries all the time.
I live on the border with Canada, and it is the same here. We have shoppers from Canada at our local Walmart all the time and Americans are in St. Stephen just as often. There is an annual International Festival to celebrate the "binational" state of affairs. Somehow, the Candians don't upset us.

No they dont bother us..."somehow". You will want to get cracking on destroying that now. Cant have Americans being comfortable.
Shoppers dont make a nation "binational". If it does then we should ban shoppers. Our president doesnt represent a "bination". He represents the United States.
Any more treason?

But no we arent binational...yet. Your candidates do campaign in Mexico however...dont they?

This is the CDZ. Don't be accusing me of treason for not agreeing with you, please.

Your support of other countries rather than your own makes you a traitor. Your support of candidates who actively campaign on foreign soil and attack Americans on this soil. Your party has *demonstrably* been proven to represent foreigners even to the point of cutting off military pay to advance the interests of foreign nationals. Thats treason.

 

[G.T.]

 

[OldLady]

And, off the rails we go again.

This is the CDZ and this is your thread. Do something about her, wouldja? I've already asked her politely once.

 

[G.T.]

Early 1900s...tough times...tough times.

 

[G.T.]

13-1600s...tough times. Tough, tough times.

 

[DOTR]

And, off the rails we go again.

This is the CDZ and this is your thread. Do something about her, wouldja? I've already asked her politely once.

You dont make the rules...nationwide or here. People like you fear exposure more than anything and you find yourself exposed so you want help hiding.

 

[G.T.]

it's...radioactiveeeee decaaaaay!

 

[Pete7469]

You might be right, Pete, about the SIN thing. I don't know the answer. I can tell you, though, that although I do not believe in The Big Man Upstairs, I would never consider murder. Ever.

I don't think you have to adhere to any specific religion to understand that humans aren't just an animated meat sack. Spirituality isn't about religion, although it helps to have faith in the concept of a creator at the very least. I'm not going to get into what I believe, but I know I have a soul and that when I do die I want my soul to be as clean from "sin" as I can. It seems like most everyone understands basic right Vs. wrong concepts and that "sin" such as murder, rape, theft, lies, assault and fucking around is harmful to society, let alone one's spiritual health.

A lot of people work really hard to undermine this concept and I would say they deserve most of the blame for a lot of the problems we have in a variety of areas.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't have a simple legislative answer for the gun problem. There are already ten kazillion guns out there, they're easily accessible by any maniac, so legislating along the fringes can only do so much. Can we do some legislating here and there? Sure, let's look at EVERYTHING. But legislation's efficacy will be limited and long term only.

Obviously, our poisoned political environment is going to slow down (or worse) anything major that we try to do. That appears to be the goal, for some reason. But is it possible for us all to look at this as a cultural issue? WHY is life so cheap now? HOW do people become so radicalized? WHAT pushes a damaged person over that last edge of sanity and turns them into a monster? WHEN can we step in without harming a person's liberties?

And perhaps most importantly, how can we COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE and INNOVATE in this toxic political environment, to SAVE LIVES? Certainly we have to look at entertainment. Certainly we have to look at partisan politics from a macro perspective. Certainly we have to look at the internet. There are some things we all can consider. No?

I think MOST of our problems are cultural, directly or indirectly. This is another example. But we're tying our own hands.
.

We are skipping over a big part of the answer: Define what a person's liberties are. In no society should it be so easy to kill one another. That should not be a part of a person's "liberties."

Define liberties?

Here:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

How is that for a "liberty" definition?

.

 

[OldLady]

I don't have a simple legislative answer for the gun problem. There are already ten kazillion guns out there, they're easily accessible by any maniac, so legislating along the fringes can only do so much. Can we do some legislating here and there? Sure, let's look at EVERYTHING. But legislation's efficacy will be limited and long term only.

Obviously, our poisoned political environment is going to slow down (or worse) anything major that we try to do. That appears to be the goal, for some reason. But is it possible for us all to look at this as a cultural issue? WHY is life so cheap now? HOW do people become so radicalized? WHAT pushes a damaged person over that last edge of sanity and turns them into a monster? WHEN can we step in without harming a person's liberties?

And perhaps most importantly, how can we COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE and INNOVATE in this toxic political environment, to SAVE LIVES? Certainly we have to look at entertainment. Certainly we have to look at partisan politics from a macro perspective. Certainly we have to look at the internet. There are some things we all can consider. No?

I think MOST of our problems are cultural, directly or indirectly. This is another example. But we're tying our own hands.
.

We are skipping over a big part of the answer: Define what a person's liberties are. In no society should it be so easy to kill one another. That should not be a part of a person's "liberties."

Define liberties?

Here:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

How is that for a "liberty" definition?

.

I do love my Tommy, Bootney. Where I see gun control falling is "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
I see those same limits as being kosher around not publicizing hate speech.

There are many others who do not agree. They see themselves, the individual, first, foremost and as far more important than others' needs.

 

[Pete7469]

I do love my Tommy, Bootney. Where I see gun control falling is "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
I see those same limits as being kosher around not publicizing hate speech.

There are many others who do not agree. They see themselves, the individual, first, foremost and as far more important than others' needs.

Needs?

Or WANTS?


.

 

[impuretrash]

American politicians don't have the balls to address the cultural and moral rot at the center of the violence problem. They're not even allowed to talk about the demographic that commits the most gun crimes.

 

[task0778]

I don't have a simple legislative answer for the gun problem. There are already ten kazillion guns out there, they're easily accessible by any maniac, so legislating along the fringes can only do so much. Can we do some legislating here and there? Sure, let's look at EVERYTHING. But legislation's efficacy will be limited and long term only.

Obviously, our poisoned political environment is going to slow down (or worse) anything major that we try to do. That appears to be the goal, for some reason. But is it possible for us all to look at this as a cultural issue? WHY is life so cheap now? HOW do people become so radicalized? WHAT pushes a damaged person over that last edge of sanity and turns them into a monster? WHEN can we step in without harming a person's liberties?

And perhaps most importantly, how can we COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE and INNOVATE in this toxic political environment, to SAVE LIVES? Certainly we have to look at entertainment. Certainly we have to look at partisan politics from a macro perspective. Certainly we have to look at the internet. There are some things we all can consider. No?

I think MOST of our problems are cultural, directly or indirectly. This is another example. But we're tying our own hands.
.

We are skipping over a big part of the answer: Define what a person's liberties are. In no society should it be so easy to kill one another. That should not be a part of a person's "liberties."

Define liberties?

Here:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

How is that for a "liberty" definition?

.

I do love my Tommy, Bootney. Where I see gun control falling is "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
I see those same limits as being kosher around not publicizing hate speech.

There are many others who do not agree. They see themselves, the individual, first, foremost and as far more important than others' needs.

I guess my question would be, who gets to decide which rights should be limited and by how much, or maybe even eliminated. Has to be Congress, subject to the President's veto, and scrutiny by the Judicial Branch, eventually up to the SCOTUS. So then it becomes a political issue, which these days seems to be dang-near impossible to resolve.

As far as individual rights vs other's needs, maybe we oughta be pretty careful about sacrificing one for the other.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't have a simple legislative answer for the gun problem. There are already ten kazillion guns out there, they're easily accessible by any maniac, so legislating along the fringes can only do so much. Can we do some legislating here and there? Sure, let's look at EVERYTHING. But legislation's efficacy will be limited and long term only.

Obviously, our poisoned political environment is going to slow down (or worse) anything major that we try to do. That appears to be the goal, for some reason. But is it possible for us all to look at this as a cultural issue? WHY is life so cheap now? HOW do people become so radicalized? WHAT pushes a damaged person over that last edge of sanity and turns them into a monster? WHEN can we step in without harming a person's liberties?

And perhaps most importantly, how can we COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE and INNOVATE in this toxic political environment, to SAVE LIVES? Certainly we have to look at entertainment. Certainly we have to look at partisan politics from a macro perspective. Certainly we have to look at the internet. There are some things we all can consider. No?

I think MOST of our problems are cultural, directly or indirectly. This is another example. But we're tying our own hands.
.

We are skipping over a big part of the answer: Define what a person's liberties are. In no society should it be so easy to kill one another. That should not be a part of a person's "liberties."

Define liberties?

Here:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

How is that for a "liberty" definition?

.

I do love my Tommy, Bootney. Where I see gun control falling is "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
I see those same limits as being kosher around not publicizing hate speech.

There are many others who do not agree. They see themselves, the individual, first, foremost and as far more important than others' needs.

But, Jefferson doesn't say "needs" he says "equal rights" of others.

The free exercise of your liberty cannot infringe upon mine. That's it. Nothing more.

.

 

[OldLady]

I don't have a simple legislative answer for the gun problem. There are already ten kazillion guns out there, they're easily accessible by any maniac, so legislating along the fringes can only do so much. Can we do some legislating here and there? Sure, let's look at EVERYTHING. But legislation's efficacy will be limited and long term only.

Obviously, our poisoned political environment is going to slow down (or worse) anything major that we try to do. That appears to be the goal, for some reason. But is it possible for us all to look at this as a cultural issue? WHY is life so cheap now? HOW do people become so radicalized? WHAT pushes a damaged person over that last edge of sanity and turns them into a monster? WHEN can we step in without harming a person's liberties?

And perhaps most importantly, how can we COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE and INNOVATE in this toxic political environment, to SAVE LIVES? Certainly we have to look at entertainment. Certainly we have to look at partisan politics from a macro perspective. Certainly we have to look at the internet. There are some things we all can consider. No?

I think MOST of our problems are cultural, directly or indirectly. This is another example. But we're tying our own hands.
.

We are skipping over a big part of the answer: Define what a person's liberties are. In no society should it be so easy to kill one another. That should not be a part of a person's "liberties."

Define liberties?

Here:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

How is that for a "liberty" definition?

.

I do love my Tommy, Bootney. Where I see gun control falling is "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
I see those same limits as being kosher around not publicizing hate speech.

There are many others who do not agree. They see themselves, the individual, first, foremost and as far more important than others' needs.

But, Jefferson doesn't say "needs" he says "equal rights" of others.

The free exercise of your liberty cannot infringe upon mine. That's it. Nothing more.

.

We've all heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, right? Safety is second only to the physical needs that keep us alive. Yes, it is a need, I think.

 

[MaryL]

I don't have a simple legislative answer for the gun problem. There are already ten kazillion guns out there, and they're easily accessible by any maniac. So legislating along the fringes can only do so much. Can we do some legislating here and there? Sure, let's look at EVERYTHING. But legislation's efficacy will be limited and long term only.

Obviously, our poisoned political environment is going to slow down (or worse) anything major that we try to do. That appears to be the goal, for some reason. But is it possible for us all to look at this as a cultural issue? WHY is life so cheap now? HOW do people become so radicalized? WHAT pushes a damaged person over that last edge of sanity and turns them into a monster? WHEN can we step in without harming a person's liberties?

And perhaps most importantly, how can we COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE and INNOVATE in this toxic political environment, to SAVE LIVES? Certainly we have to look at entertainment. Certainly we have to look at partisan politics from a macro perspective. Certainly we have to look at the internet. There are some things we all can consider. No?

I think MOST of our problems are cultural, directly or indirectly. This is another example. But we're tying our own hands.
.

What does that mean? Ever since the 1966 Texas clock tower shooter, alarm bells should have gone off. That particular guy had a brain tumor that in all probability led to his violence. So how could any measure been created to address that? Then or NOW? We need to restrict gun ownership to certified hunters, sportsmen collectors or the police. I don't know how we do that, since the NRA and gun lobbies pretty much have total control over the issue. Like the fox guarding the henhouse. How about we have a NATIONAL referendum on guns, and winner takes all? Since this is a democracy...