The Real Effort Over Gun Control

[beagle9]

The fact criminals have them? Unless you'd PREFER to be at a disadvantage against armed criminals, which would be rather odd choice I think.

More justification? Okay. I hunt with AR15 rifles. Perfect for hogs and varmints.

Even more justification? Sure. It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

A law that would make the sale, manufacture and distribution of assault weapons to private citizens also effects the criminal's access to them.

And just how does that happen genius? The criminals obey the laws?



I don't know how things work on your planet, but on this planet the military will always have them and that means opposing militaries will also have them and some countries are lax in enforcing their existing laws and other countries who have militaries and arms manufacturers are corrupt and will sell them to anyone no matter the law. When a criminal or a criminal organization wants a high-capacity assault weapon, they will have no trouble getting one.

And were there no wold boar killed before the invention of the assault rifle?

Yes they were, but rarely and at great peril to the hunters.

And you have no "right" to one either. They are weapons built for war. The second amendment protects you from tyranny by calling loudly for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Not your drinking buddies, a couple of pick up trucks and AR-15s.

And then there's this hackneyed and much debunked argument.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................

His position is that he fears a bunch of rednecks with guns, so he tries to tie this fear into the shooting, and so he does this so he can de-gun these rednecks in which he fears.... Never let a huge crisis go to waste right?

 

[beagle9]

1. Gun toting criminals
2. The Government

ummm.... if you disarmed "everyone" -- how are criminals armed? Duh...


Words are not a toy to play with. They can misfire and shoot you back. Especially when you don't know how to handle them.

You're too ignorant to have a discussion with.

No let him keep talking so that the whole world can see how crazy he actually is, and how poisonous he actually is as well, otherwise to the mindset of America even further on down the road a piece, especially if he had his way.

 

[Nosmo King]

While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.

Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"

Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings. And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!

Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?

Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate. Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?

Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.

Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn. As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard. Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?

 

[LibertyLemming]

While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.

Your political allies, those in power currently, those who wish to force everyone to live the way they believe and if they don't they belong in a cage, are the ones who murder innocent children with bombs from the sky. I think the count in Pakistan alone is over 175 dead innocent children. I'm sure you will find some flowery language you heard on one of the media outlets to defend these actions. I am against murderers, period. My political ally is the one who leaves each person alone.

Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"

Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings. And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!

The idea that all mass shootings have only been done with handguns is well just wrong. If you really are too inpet to use google I'll link you to some examples.

Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?

Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate. Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?

Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.

Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn. As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard. Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?

What I find annoying is that you think citizens are insane for wanting to have guns, but you have no problem with the military and politicians and police (lol citizens) having all the guns? Have you no sense of history and what happens when all the power is concentrated in the hands of government? Even if you don't think the USA would ever do to its own citizens what every nation before us has done (make sure not to have this discussion in front of any American Japs from the WWII era), why should I be allowed to protect myself, my family, my property with the same means that Harry Reid, The President, the Undersecretary of Defense, etc etc have to protect themselves? Are oyu saying one life is worth more than another? Hmmm

I think you should let people live their lives. Those who harm others will do so regardless and will be punished but people who are doing no harm to anyone do not need to be treated to such barbaric rituals as throwing people in a cage for oh I dunno not wearing a seatbelt.

If it is keeping people safe you are interested in, the first group that you should disarm is the government. They kill way more people than any one of us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To those who believe that we need guns to "fight tyranny":

What ever do you mean by that? A gaggle of idiots with assault rifles slung across their shoulders IS tyranny, not the defenders against it. The second amendment calls LOUDLY for a well regulated militia. That's where assault weapons belong, not on the streets.

If you want to defend against some perceived tyranny, join the National Guard or the State Police. These folks are the real defenders against tyranny. They have proven it. It was National Guardsmen who protected Civil Rights marchers against the tyranny of idiot racists.

Do you see tyranny today? If so, where? because I believe that most of sane America is pretty much satisfied, except for the tyranny of the extremist who holds the view that he has some warped "right" to hold aa assault rifle while other nuts tear up schools, theaters, temples and our streets with, guess what, ASSAULT RIFLES!

These weapons have NO PLACE in our society. They need to be banned forever. The only tyranny I see is the tyranny of the gun nut who insists we must suffer the deadly consequences of assault weapons as a price for his 'freedom'.

True, the notion of private ownership of guns to ‘fight tyranny’ is idiocy.

What’s remarkable about this nonsense is that gun owners no longer need to justify their position. The Court has ruled there is an individual right to own a firearm – not collective – and that gun ownership is not connected to ‘militia service.’ The Court also ruled that the individual right to own a gun is not limited to weapons in existence during the Foundation Era, but to modern weapons ‘in common use’ today.

So this ridiculous notion of ‘fighting tyranny’ is clearly pointless from a legal and Constitutional standpoint, and is being used only in some bizarre political context, obviously the extreme, radical right.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Land of the free... video surveillance in publics places, police microphones on neighborhood street corners, sniifer dogs in airports, blue codes, urine testing, DNA data banks, internet censorship, helmet laws, tobacco laws, seat belt laws, liquor laws, persecution for joking, prosecution for flirting, litigation over everything under the sun, and the telling statistic that in the US, 645 out of every 100,000 citizens were locked up in prisons, as opposed to an average of 80 per 100,000 in the rest of the world.

 

[Nosmo King]

Land of the free... video surveillance in publics places, police microphones on neighborhood street corners, sniifer dogs in airports, blue codes, urine testing, DNA data banks, internet censorship, helmet laws, tobacco laws, seat belt laws, liquor laws, persecution for joking, prosecution for flirting, litigation over everything under the sun, and the telling statistic that in the US, 645 out of every 100,000 citizens were locked up in prisons, as opposed to an average of 80 per 100,000 in the rest of the world.

Perhaps we should tackle one problem at a time. When we suffer massacres by way of assault weapons, is pursuing and end to seat belt laws the most responsible plan of solutions?

 

[LibertyLemming]

You seem to be under some sort of veil in which criminals who murder people would stop if we had 11 laws instead of 10. We shouldn't construct our society on the whims of lunatics. It's bad enough some of you continue to vote then into office. The very man who wants to ban some weapons has killed more innocent children than any single shooter.

 

[Nosmo King]

You seem to be under some sort of veil in which criminals who murder people would stop if we had 11 laws instead of 10. We shouldn't construct our society on the whims of lunatics. It's bad enough some of you continue to vote then into office. The very man who wants to ban some weapons has killed more innocent children than any single shooter.

We need effective laws, no laws watered down by the NRA. the last time we tried to address assault weapons, the gun lobby focused on cosmetics; detachable stocks, grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors. Not the guns and the rate of sustained fire they produce. Ten or eleven such meaningless laws will continue to demonstrate the futility of legislating with a powerful interest group who fails to recognize that the reason we have "mass shootings" is the guns that are capable of making "mass" part of the equation.

 

[beagle9]

While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.

Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"

Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings. And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!

Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?

Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate. Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?

Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.

Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn. As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard. Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?

Here is the deal with people like you, where as because you fear, you want the rest of us to fear as you do also, and because you are an advocate or victim of your own idiotic thinking and/or solutions in life, then the rest of us should just shut up and give in as according to you, and just follow your advice also ? Not going to happen, and so you better think again before you think we are going to capitulate and become a nation scared of it's own shadow in the wake of all of this ? You think because you are scared of your own shadow, then you think that we should be also ? We didn't become scared of our own shadow after 9-11 the many of us didn't, and we sure as hec ain't going to become scared of it now. I know this will make you sad, but your agenda can go jump in a lake, because we aren't buying what you are selling and that's that.

Now this nation as is found in parts of it now, and because of people like you, became to over protecting of everything that moved (which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted as a result of his actions), and thus it worked because people like you live like scared little rats in your world, and in your views of the world as you know it anymore.

 

[beagle9]

Land of the free... video surveillance in publics places, police microphones on neighborhood street corners, sniifer dogs in airports, blue codes, urine testing, DNA data banks, internet censorship, helmet laws, tobacco laws, seat belt laws, liquor laws, persecution for joking, prosecution for flirting, litigation over everything under the sun, and the telling statistic that in the US, 645 out of every 100,000 citizens were locked up in prisons, as opposed to an average of 80 per 100,000 in the rest of the world.

Perhaps we should tackle one problem at a time. When we suffer massacres by way of assault weapons, is pursuing and end to seat belt laws the most responsible plan of solutions?

If the shooter left a note saying he was mad about seat belt laws is why he did it, just to throw you off the trail, yes you would bite the bait like a gullable fish like you are. Next you would be saying hey we need to roll back seat belt laws, in order that this don't happen again...LOL

You are one gullable human being you know that ?

 

[beagle9]

You seem to be under some sort of veil in which criminals who murder people would stop if we had 11 laws instead of 10. We shouldn't construct our society on the whims of lunatics. It's bad enough some of you continue to vote then into office. The very man who wants to ban some weapons has killed more innocent children than any single shooter.

We need effective laws, no laws watered down by the NRA. the last time we tried to address assault weapons, the gun lobby focused on cosmetics; detachable stocks, grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors. Not the guns and the rate of sustained fire they produce. Ten or eleven such meaningless laws will continue to demonstrate the futility of legislating with a powerful interest group who fails to recognize that the reason we have "mass shootings" is the guns that are capable of making "mass" part of the equation.

"Powerful" group as opposed to yours, and you hate that don't you ?

 

[LibertyLemming]

You seem to be under some sort of veil in which criminals who murder people would stop if we had 11 laws instead of 10. We shouldn't construct our society on the whims of lunatics. It's bad enough some of you continue to vote then into office. The very man who wants to ban some weapons has killed more innocent children than any single shooter.

We need effective laws, no laws watered down by the NRA. the last time we tried to address assault weapons, the gun lobby focused on cosmetics; detachable stocks, grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors. Not the guns and the rate of sustained fire they produce. Ten or eleven such meaningless laws will continue to demonstrate the futility of legislating with a powerful interest group who fails to recognize that the reason we have "mass shootings" is the guns that are capable of making "mass" part of the equation.

Actually the last time "assault rifles" were banned we had Columbine. Remind me how those bans on pot, crack, meth, and child porn are doing?

 

[Nosmo King]

While Tim McVeigh did not use an assault weapon, he is firmly in the corner, politically speaking, of the pro gun violence nuts who believe that they can play Army and resist the federal government. There is no denying this. The "Water the tree of freedom with blood" T-shirt and grunting Michigan Militia mindset puts Timmy and Terry in the pocket of those who see no threat from assault weapons. He certainly isn't my political ally.

Then there are those who say that the gun is an inanimate object and poses no threat whatsoever. Perhaps that's true. But consider this: there were no "mass shootings" before the advent of the assault weapon. Gun violence was something dreadful, but never the less understandable before the death toll of such violence reached alarming proportions. Thus the argument that mass shootings must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rings of stupidity. What tool is used in mass shootings? Why the assault weapon, of course. So, does it make sense to ban assault weapons? "No," says the gun nut "That's agenda driven!"

Damn right it's agenda driven! The agenda is to rid society of the plague of mass shootings. And the common thread in all mass shootings? Why it's the assault weapon!

Some think that there is a real chance for the reincarnation of George III and they want to re-enact the American Revolution, or what I call 'play Army'. Some point to the fact that foreign leaders kill hundreds of thousands of their own subjects as a justification for Americans keeping the tools that kill tens of thousands of their fellow Americans. What warped immature mind can make such an argument and make it proudly?

Some say that the American government can become as tyrannical as the governments in China or Iran or North Korea and thus the American people must have assault weapons. Well, our government is not tyrannical, but the bodies of the victims of assault weapons pile up at a staggering rate. Is the perceived fear of American tyranny worth the body count? Is that body count a worse fate than the perceptions of the paranoid and politically insulated?

Some say that an assault weapon is necessary for hunting. Was there no game taken before the ability to fire five shots per second was invented? Is there anything left of the animal slain by such a rapid and sustained rate of fire? Senator Joe Manchin sees the fallacy of this under-thought argument.

Some think that there is a foreign power poised to invade the United States and they want to be prepared just like in the movie Red Dawn. As if the United States has no Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines or National Guard. Does the desire to play Army justify the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned upon innocent Americans?

Here is the deal with people like you, where as because you fear, you want the rest of us to fear as you do also, and because you are an advocate or victim of your own idiotic thinking and/or solutions in life, then the rest of us should just shut up and give in as according to you, and just follow your advice also ? Not going to happen, and so you better think again before you think we are going to capitulate and become a nation scared of it's own shadow in the wake of all of this ? You think because you are scared of your own shadow, then you think that we should be also ? We didn't become scared of our own shadow after 9-11 the many of us didn't, and we sure as hec ain't going to become scared of it now. I know this will make you sad, but your agenda can go jump in a lake, because we aren't buying what you are selling and that's that.

Now this nation as is found in parts of it now, and because of people like you, became to over protecting of everything that moved (which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted as a result of his actions), and thus it worked because people like you live like scared little rats in your world, and in your views of the world as you know it anymore.

I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear" the government. I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear' criminal actions. I'm not justifying assault weapons because i "fear" attack by wild animals. Yet all those 'justifications' have been made by those who fail to recognize the slaughter assault weapons visit on the innocent American citizens.

What I fear is the inaction by those who do justify the 'need' for assault weapons based on their own irrational fears. I fear the rivers of tears and blood left after an assault weapon is turned on innocent victims and the ill conceived rationalization that such massacres must be taken on a case-by-case basis, ignoring the common thread of sorrow: the assault weapon.

I don't want to disarm American citizens. I justr cannot see the justification. the virtue of a weapon capable of creating such mass slaughter in a very short period of time.

 

[Nosmo King]

You seem to be under some sort of veil in which criminals who murder people would stop if we had 11 laws instead of 10. We shouldn't construct our society on the whims of lunatics. It's bad enough some of you continue to vote then into office. The very man who wants to ban some weapons has killed more innocent children than any single shooter.

We need effective laws, no laws watered down by the NRA. the last time we tried to address assault weapons, the gun lobby focused on cosmetics; detachable stocks, grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors. Not the guns and the rate of sustained fire they produce. Ten or eleven such meaningless laws will continue to demonstrate the futility of legislating with a powerful interest group who fails to recognize that the reason we have "mass shootings" is the guns that are capable of making "mass" part of the equation.

Actually the last time "assault rifles" were banned we had Columbine. Remind me how those bans on pot, crack, meth, and child porn are doing?

Cosmetics were banned, not the assault weapons themselves. Did it make a bit of difference that detachable stocks or flash suppressors were banned and not high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems?

We get what we get when gun makers and their lackeys in the NRA write legislation.

 

[Nosmo King]

You seem to be under some sort of veil in which criminals who murder people would stop if we had 11 laws instead of 10. We shouldn't construct our society on the whims of lunatics. It's bad enough some of you continue to vote then into office. The very man who wants to ban some weapons has killed more innocent children than any single shooter.

We need effective laws, no laws watered down by the NRA. the last time we tried to address assault weapons, the gun lobby focused on cosmetics; detachable stocks, grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors. Not the guns and the rate of sustained fire they produce. Ten or eleven such meaningless laws will continue to demonstrate the futility of legislating with a powerful interest group who fails to recognize that the reason we have "mass shootings" is the guns that are capable of making "mass" part of the equation.

"Powerful" group as opposed to yours, and you hate that don't you ?

Aren't those powerful groups agenda driven? And what is their agenda? To sell as many assault weapons as possible.

 

[PredFan]

A law that would make the sale, manufacture and distribution of assault weapons to private citizens also effects the criminal's access to them.

And just how does that happen genius? The criminals obey the laws?



I don't know how things work on your planet, but on this planet the military will always have them and that means opposing militaries will also have them and some countries are lax in enforcing their existing laws and other countries who have militaries and arms manufacturers are corrupt and will sell them to anyone no matter the law. When a criminal or a criminal organization wants a high-capacity assault weapon, they will have no trouble getting one.




Yes they were, but rarely and at great peril to the hunters.

And you have no "right" to one either. They are weapons built for war. The second amendment protects you from tyranny by calling loudly for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Not your drinking buddies, a couple of pick up trucks and AR-15s.

And then there's this hackneyed and much debunked argument.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................

His position is that he fears a bunch of rednecks with guns, so he tries to tie this fear into the shooting, and so he does this so he can de-gun these rednecks in which he fears.... Never let a huge crisis go to waste right?

Exactly.

 

[PredFan]

We need effective laws, no laws watered down by the NRA. the last time we tried to address assault weapons, the gun lobby focused on cosmetics; detachable stocks, grips, bayonet mounts, flash suppressors. Not the guns and the rate of sustained fire they produce. Ten or eleven such meaningless laws will continue to demonstrate the futility of legislating with a powerful interest group who fails to recognize that the reason we have "mass shootings" is the guns that are capable of making "mass" part of the equation.

"Powerful" group as opposed to yours, and you hate that don't you ?

Aren't those powerful groups agenda driven? And what is their agenda? To sell as many assault weapons as possible.

Bull shit. The agenda of the NRA is, was, and always will be the protection of gun rights. Anything else exists only in your deranged liberal mind.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I just want someone to explain to me why we should give every weapon to the very people that do the most murdering of innocents. It baffles logic and deception and lies. Look out for those killer B's.

 

[YoungRepublican]

There is no 100% foolproof solution. Just like there's no 100% foolproof solution for wars, rapes, child molestation, etc., etc., etc. It is what it is. If we can turn back the clock approximately 100 years, then there's your solution right there, as there was barely any such thing as school shootings 100 years ago and there certainly was no such thing as school shootings involving AR-15s. But, turning back the clock 100 years ain't gonna' happen. Just like, your taking away Americans' Constitutional rights ain't gonna' happen. However, maybe, using your rationale, we should ban mentally challenged people...eh?

Some things we might do which might be helpful...though? Start stressing the fact that keeping guns in the near vicinity of people with mental issues might not be such a good idea. Start perhaps committing people with more serious mental issues. Also, enough with the inundation of drugs for those suffering mental issues. And, start being more aware of those side effects users might be experiencing, even if they have to embarrass the user in order to be aware of that information. Some users might be afraid to inform mental health workers of side effects they're experiencing due to embarrassing reasons. And, mental health workers need to be clear that the users' embarrassments are irrelevant in the face of what negative consequences might arise out of unknown side effects the user might be experiencing. We already know why the Columbine shooters did what they did. So, it's time to start teaching kids to buck up and grow some thick skin, and stop being such pussies. Not, all this horseshit bullying campaign that's going on currently. All that does is make them even bigger pussies. And then, in many instances, a good old-fashioned ass whooping for misbehaving brats might be appropriate. We didn't have as many instances of stuff like this when pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass.

No, we didnt have this many instances when "pop was allowed to take the punk behind the woodshed and paddle his everloving ass" but we created a culture of abusive husbands and fathers. My Dad used to hit us, till I got old enough to hit him back, because I know the difference between what is right and wrong.. If you honestly think that domestic violence is answer to a problem then youre a ******* moron.. It's funny to me that all of these people with their well "Kids are pussies, lets just beat it out of them" mentality are usually from the south or midwest, areas sticken by poverty, domestic abuse and crimes all created by the culture that I can see so blatantly written across all of these boards.

Oh so your mentally messed up from being beaten by an abusive father, and so you think you can speak from that position to tell me what rights I get to have in America now ? My question is how many are actually out there like you, and should we take heed that you all are getting the power to control this nation from a standpoint of bias due to your own personal experience's in life ?

Haha my mentality is just fine. My point was that beating children is not a response to a problem. If youd like to argue that, be my guest. There is no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that beating the wuss out of a kid is a truly idiotic and barbaric practice, only still accepted in poor uneducated places like the south and midwest