By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

Mr Khan on 26 May 2014
DD_Bwest said:
this thread is going to get locked.. very few actually discussing anything important with far to many personal attacks

this incident has more to do with mental health than it does gun control. this guy was going to kill people no matter he had a gun or not.

and as someone who strongly supports the right to firearms, i appeal to other supporters to be open and realistic about them. There are many different types of firearms, with different purposes. Some are meant for hunting, others for marksmenship, and yes others for killing people. There is an entire market for guns specific for protecting yourself against PEOPLE.

The second point is of prominent importance. All this hammers home is the continuing need for better mental health support in this country, both in the form of a better-staffed, publically-funded infrastructure, and a culture which encourages family members to know the signs of mental illness, and to de-stigmatize the treatment of mental illness so that family members or individuals who are mentally ill aren't passively encouraged to bury their problems for the sake of propriety.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Burek on 26 May 2014
JPL78 said:

Bundy is a douche. He broke the law. The idiots backing him up were not "patriots, protecting their freedoms" they were a bunch of dangerous extremists trying to goad our government into a blood bath. These same idiots were threatening to use their women and children as human shields. All because a welfare cheat wanted to claim he didn't acknowledge our federal government as existing. News flash: our government exists whether you accept it or not and if you live in the United States you are under their laws.

You know who picks and chooses which laws to follow? Criminals. Would you guys be praising a drug dealer for having a standoff with the swat team? Would they be "protecting their constitutional freedoms?"

And you guys saying "it worked!" Yes, congratulations, our so called "evil government" didn't wish to kill a bunch of civilians. That's a good thing not a bad thing. If they wanted too they could have carpet bombed Bundy's ass to hell. Not a single gun present would have had the slightest ability to stop that.

But I guess that's where we are in his country, an ignorant racist tax cheat is seen as a patriot and a hero. The men and women who are supposed enforce the law in our country, the enemies.

This is a very reasonable and coherent post. Every single word is true, and a fair assessment of the situation at hand. 



badgenome on 26 May 2014
JPL78 said:

You know who picks and chooses which laws to follow? Criminals.

Also, the government.

When the government decides which of its own laws to follow, which ones to enforce, and which to ignore, you can't be surprised that people no longer respect the law. The government murdered the rule of law a long time ago. This is just the result.



sethnintendo on 26 May 2014
badgenome said:
JPL78 said:

You know who picks and chooses which laws to follow? Criminals.

Also, the government.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/?page=full



JPL78 on 26 May 2014
Burek said:
JPL78 said:

Bundy is a douche. He broke the law. The idiots backing him up were not "patriots, protecting their freedoms" they were a bunch of dangerous extremists trying to goad our government into a blood bath. These same idiots were threatening to use their women and children as human shields. All because a welfare cheat wanted to claim he didn't acknowledge our federal government as existing. News flash: our government exists whether you accept it or not and if you live in the United States you are under their laws.

You know who picks and chooses which laws to follow? Criminals. Would you guys be praising a drug dealer for having a standoff with the swat team? Would they be "protecting their constitutional freedoms?"

And you guys saying "it worked!" Yes, congratulations, our so called "evil government" didn't wish to kill a bunch of civilians. That's a good thing not a bad thing. If they wanted too they could have carpet bombed Bundy's ass to hell. Not a single gun present would have had the slightest ability to stop that.

But I guess that's where we are in his country, an ignorant racist tax cheat is seen as a patriot and a hero. The men and women who are supposed enforce the law in our country, the enemies.

This is a very reasonable and coherent post. Every single word is true, and a fair assessment of the situation at hand. 

 

Thanks. Although I admit I need to curb the name calling like douche and idiot. I get a little carried away.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 26 May 2014
Mr Khan said:

The second point is of prominent importance. All this hammers home is the continuing need for better mental health support in this country, both in the form of a better-staffed, publically-funded infrastructure, and a culture which encourages family members to know the signs of mental illness, and to de-stigmatize the treatment of mental illness so that family members or individuals who are mentally ill aren't passively encouraged to bury their problems for the sake of propriety.

Way we deal with mental health in USA?  Give them drugs that will probably give them worse side effects than their condition.



JPL78 on 26 May 2014
badgenome said:
JPL78 said:

You know who picks and chooses which laws to follow? Criminals.

Also, the government.


I'll give you that. Doesn't justify it though.



badgenome on 26 May 2014
sethnintendo said:

Way we deal with mental health in USA?  Give them drugs that will probably give them worse side effects than their condition.

I was thinking about this earlier. Have there been any spree shooters who weren't on antipsychotic medication? If mental illness were so dangerous, I'd think we'd see a lot more instances of undiagnosed people breaking. Instead, it seems to be the opposite.



badgenome on 26 May 2014
JPL78 said:

I'll give you that. Doesn't justify it though.

It doesn't, of course. But this is the inevitable result. Overlegislation of everything looks an awful lot like anarchy.



JPL78 on 26 May 2014
badgenome said:
JPL78 said:

I'll give you that. Doesn't justify it though.

It doesn't, of course. But this is the inevitable result. Overlegislation of everything looks an awful lot like anarchy.

I think the main problem we have is lobbyist. Billionaires and powerful corperations shouldn't be able to buy and control our shitty corrupt legislators. When large majority's of the American people want certain things and our so called "representatives" vote against these things our system is completely failing. Then furthermore so many of them are able to stay in power for 40 plus years wii no real threat of being removed because of blatant districting abuse....

we have so many problems in this country.