What I find disturbing is how commercials are seen as a form of entertainment at this point. 3 million dollars to tell me to drink your beer and how much to actually produce the commercial? All for a few seconds on the tv *shaking my head*.
I like how Bull153 keeps saying that he's not going to do these news montages again - yet he keeps doing them! Seems he can't even stop from telling himself lies.
Speaking of mentally ill, I think people who are paranoid and delusional should also be prevented from owning guns. Anyone who thinks they will gun down half a dozen armed intruders or people who want guns to "prevent government tyranny" or whatever, should absolutely be prevented from owning guns as well.
"There seems to be little interest in these tidbits of craziness, so this will be the last installment."
When is that big Australia move coming up again Bull153? Or did that have about as much truth as the quote up top?
Well do you not see government tyranny crimeriddendump building up? The warrant less wiretapping, NSA spying on citizens, government infiltrating groups to destroy movements, the assassination of US citizens abroad, the government cracking down on dissent, the militarization of police, etc, etc? You been to a protest before? I've been to protests where the cops brought out armored vehicles, assault weapons, dressed like Darth Vader. Who is all of this stuff for? For what reason does the police station need a tank? Just in case it gets hit by the super deadly water bottle?
The militarization of Police is one of the greatest travesties in US History.
So why should people who want to protect against government tyranny have their guns taken away? I mean sure some of them are the Alex Jones type who think the government is trying to make boys feminem through chemicals in the water, but I don't think it's crazy to say that our supposed rights have been detioriating for quite a while now and that it's becoming more tyrannical and intruding more into our lives. The War on Drugs and The War on Terror are being used to crackdown on the poor who want to stand up for themselves.
I think revolts against tyrannical governments seem be the right thing to do. However, I think similar violent revolts against legitimately democratically elected governments is the antithesis of the whole notion of democracy and free speech.
I think there are answers to the war against the poor but, don't think more violence is a part of the solution.
Hello Bull153, The deaths of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield are unquestionably tragic events. But many questions do remain surrounding what happened and why it happened. News reports right now are sketchy at best. Just as you took issue with The Sovereign's repeating a Facebook assessment (The "killed by a gun, while holding a gun, surrounded by guns" reference), you have also introduced speculation here by "wondering" if the shooter actually had PTSD "or did this guy have issues to begin with and should have never been in the military to begin with". If your theory is correct, it seems strange that he served in the military for four years without his behavior raising any red flags to those in command over him. The comment, "No way should he have been allowed around firearms" is your opinion and a judgment call. When I first read about the incident, I thought much the same thing as you about the advisability of putting a gun in a disturbed soldier's hands (he is currently a Reservist, I believe). However, subsequent reports that I read stated that Chris Kyle had created a foundation designed to help Veterans assimilate back into society and that he had taken several other Vets suffering from PTSD to the gun range as part of therapy. I know only a smattering about PTSD, but think perhaps (and now this mere SPECULATION on my part) he believed that these Vets felt safer and more in control with the familiarity of a weapon in their hands on the gun range, as if that could make sense for them in a world (back home) where the parameters of war and the ways needed to function in that type of high stress environment no longer applied. We may never know all the reasons and motivations for this tragedy. But I think that your speculation or my speculation is not really productive. You mention mental illness, which is indeed a problem our society does not adequately address. But I would be interested in the actual percentage of those who are mentally ill who subsequently act violently with some type of weapon and the percentage of firearm deaths caused by the mentally ill as compared to firearm deaths (murder, suicide, self-defense, law enforcement) overall from those who are supposedly sane. Murders by the mentally ill are often prominent because they are so horrific, unfathomable, and may involve mass shootings. But the "gun problem" in the United States can not be hidden behind or swept under the "mental health issues" rug. It is far more complex and far-reaching than that. Debunking the cherished myths of a "gun culture" mentality is a first step. Sincerely, Karen
So crimeriddendump a democratically elected government can not be tyrannical? So when the state is stomping on your neck, rushing into your protests with batons raised, spying on you, wiretapping you without a warrant, trying to put you jail for supporting "terrorist" groups(While you have a Republican who not only gave support verbally to the IRA, a terrorist group according to our government, but had fundraising events for them. The same Republican who has hearings on Muslims because he thinks they're becoming too radical the freakin' hypocrite), will put you in jail for not snitching on your comrades, will infiltrate your group to try and disrupt your activities if you're against the wars and the bankers who are screwing us all over. When was the last time you voted that it was alright for the U.S. government to spy on you? We have a "democratic-republican" style system in a undemocratic society.
Many people who voted for that "progressive" Quan in Oakland didn't expect to get cracked down on by OPD(Coordinated by the FBI across many cities who elected Democrats thinking they would represent their will but didn't). People try to stand up against the injustices in society and get COINTELPRO style treatment by the government. If I make some articles saying I support FARC or the PFLP I'm liable to get put on some list or for the government to come knocking down my door. You don't think that's real, ask the Freedom Road Socialist Organization about being infiltrated by pigs and getting their homes raided because of their support.
But everything is fine, I'll be sure to tell my friends Katherine Olejnik and Matt Duran that everything is okay, this is a legitimate democratically elected government that wouldn't put them in jail for months(and counting) for the crime of not talking to the police about people they knows' political beliefs, that it isn't tyranny.
Any tragedy such as this will have multiple opinions from multiple sources. We now know that both victims were shot in the back, which means they were comfortable and didn't perceive any danger. I know that a familiarity with weapons for a military member can be an enjoyable and safe experience, but with the wrong individual at the wrong time without safeguards, tragedies can and will occur.
I think in some cases those who suffer from PTSD can be helped through fellowship with other veterans even at a gun range. But until you are confident of the individual and there are adequate safeguards in place, it's better not t allow those with mental issues around loaded firearms.
Here are a couple of articles that may help to understand PTSD and gun range therapy:
D36 - ICRD
“The belief that one's own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions” - Paul Watzlawick
“The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth” - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
People are in jail at this very moment for not giving information to people they knows' politics over to the police who have been trying to map out the activity of anarchists in Seattle for a while now. They were ordered to court in relation to some windows being smashed at a courthouse. At least one of the people being held captive by the "justice" system was not even in Seattle that day but at her job in a different city. They have been in jail for months now because they are not giving out information about anarchists. They have not even been charged with anything.
Members of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization face charges because of their support of two guerrilla movements, one in Colombia, the other in Palestine. Have they committed violence? Is voicing support for FARC enough to get you arrested?
And you act like the police aren't attacking/arresting peaceful protesters, that it's just the violent ones. How many times was MLK and others beat and arrested by the police? I reject that stance anyways, people being brutalized by cops have the right to fight back. If your protest is being attacked by police I hope they get their pig faces smashed. Why shouldn't people be able to fight back with force when force is being used against them?
Liberals are the worst, they see the state encroaching upon our lives but turn around and tell conservatives they're crazy and paranoid about the growing police state we have. And I really think it is just stupid partisan garbage, get mad when the PATRIOT ACT is put into law but don't even bat an eye when Obama resigns it and even worsens what GB was doing that was so bad according to them. But they still call others crazy for wanting to arm against this government.
Plus I think resisting violence is a lot more inspiring then sitting in a drum circle letting the cops handcuff you and take you off to jail. Linking arms with hundreds of other people and pushing the cops down a whole block before they retreated created the best feeling I've ever had in my life. Empowerment, euphoria, I would trade getting drunk or high any day for the feelings I had at that moment in my life. I think the only time I've had a better feeling was watching my nephew be born which brought me to tears.
What is wrong with fighting back against violence? I'm not down with that turn the other cheek stuff.
Hello Capitalists_Nightmare, I don't see linking arms and forcing police to retreat as "violent behavior", but more like "active protest". I understand your attitude, but I also believe there IS an important place for non-violent resistance, like the Occupy protest at the UC Davis quad where seated peaceful students were pepper sprayed (more like "pepper hosed") by campus police and other officers. Because there was no violent confrontation or skirmish between the two sides, the police came across as being oppressive and over-reactive, in contrast with the stoic restraint that the protesters showed. This, in turn, sparked more public outrage against "authority figures" than bottle launching or rock throwing protesters could have ever inspired (in my opinion). There were follow-up investigations resulting in firings or resignations of some personnel, public reprimands in reports, lawsuits found in favor of the protesters, and UC policy changes. Being pepper sprayed was probably not a feel-good or euphoric moment, but the aftermath and consequences DO seem empowering, to me. I think it is probably a natural reaction and human nature to want to fight back to defend oneself against oppressive behavior, but "that turn the other cheek stuff" highlights the one-sided aggressiveness or the fascist-like actions of SOME police personnel or security officers, shining a white-hot spotlight on reprehensible actions or behavior done in the name of maintaining so-called "public safety" or "order". Sincerely, Karen
I understand that and agree with you Karen, there is an important place for non-violence and violence. Looking for public support, there are always times and places for both(something insurrectionist anarchists don't seem to understand as they want to make every march a window smashing fest). But I think there is a big distinction between opposing violence from a tactical point and opposing violence from principle.
Like in this instance you had exactly what you described, peaceful non-violent protesters getting assaulted by police which created a reaction which helped the movement, which made more people sympathize with them, which made more people feel they were compelled to join them. What I don't agree with is saying that someone would be in the wrong if, given that situation, instead of taking it stood up and punched one of them in the face. Obviously they wouldn't have gotten as much support but would I say they were wrong? Tactically they were, but I sympathize with them. We saw in Oakland a person get shot in the face with a gas canister and then a flash grenade thrown into the crowd when they tried to help. He was not being violent, he was just standing there peacefully. In response to OPD actions there was a general strike called and thousands upon thousands of people had showed up.
I think that if at that point the police attacked the demonstrations and the demonstrations were defeated(whether they put up a fight or not)it would have been devastating for the people who took part. With that much support though if they repelled the police attack against them it would only have been more galvanizing for the protesters. I saw this too, because in January there was a large protest where Occupy Oakland was going to occupy and abandoned building that eventually led to a confrontation and it led to the protesters being demoralized and scattered. When I was there on May Day and we fought back and won when the police tried to do the same it gave the thousands of people there energy. I talked to many of them, most were talking about how Occupy Oakland got it's balls back after January and that it reminded them of the November 27th general strike. I think this fighting spirit that Oakland had is the main reason why after so many other Occupations sizzled out after police repression it continued to grow and still to this day it's doing stuff. I like to think it's because it had a more working class militant base then others.
Hello Capitalists_Nightmare, Since I am not a part of the Occupy protests, I am not going to counter YOUR experience with the movement, but I do disagree that there needs to be a distinction between "opposing violence from a tactical point and opposing violence from principle". I believe that there can be both, simultaneously. My example would be the protests for Civil Rights led by Martin Luther King. When people saw (as I did) television coverage and pictures of demonstrators in Alabama and other Southern states getting brutally beaten by police wielding clubs and the officers' eyes and facial expressions were clearly filled with hatred, when these protesters were fire hosed and set upon by attack dogs, this emphasized and exposed police brutality on a national stage and gave the cause a resonance and sympathetic response it might not have as effectively elicited otherwise. But I believe non-violence was not ONLY or merely a tactic for Dr. King, but a strongly held principle. I respect principles more than "tactics". Even though I understand but disagree with your point about active or violent retaliation as inspirational, I respect the passion and belief behind your words and not that you just see it as a calculated way to best act. Myself, I stand behind non-violence, both in principle and as effective method or tactic in the fight against injustice or oppression. This does not mean that I NEVER can recognize a case where violent "push-back" is necessary, only that often "violence begets violence" and, when at all possible, is best avoided. When I see pictures or T.V. footage of a bleeding,wounded police officer, I do not think, "Wow, I need to support these demonstrators' cause", but that is just me. Sincerely, Karen
And the Civil Rights movement was co-opted into acceptable currents by the capitalist class, with Dr. King being the leading reformist they could negotiate with. Dr. King wasn't challenging the whole structure of society(Being able to sit in the same restaurant as white people wasn't going to destroy the system, the ruling class could scrap that but tried to hold onto it to give a sense of solidarity with white working class folks), other militant currents like the Black Panthers were not just opposing the abuse of black people in the South but black people across the nation. Not only that but they tried organizing black, white, Asian, Latino, etc, workers to stand up for themselves to because they were a party of class struggle. And they were national, not just in the South. In Oakland, L.A., NYC, Detroit, etc. White people, especially the upperclass, feared the violence from these groups, feared that the pacifist middle class reformists could not control the people's righteous anger so they have people like MLK who they can hold up and say "We negotiated, the problem is fixed". As if that was the end of the struggle! They killed/jailed/demoralized the rest of the people who still wanted to fight and White America was perfectly fine because black people had civil rights now.
The struggle against capitalism can't be a pacifist one because we can't simply go up to the capitalist class and ask nicely if they'll please hand over the factories, the stores, their private property, to the working class and expect them to simply give it up. And if history has taught us anything it's that the capitalist class doesn't gaf about "democracy" if it has a very unfavorable outcome for their class, that they'll drown the streets in blood if they have to take the power back.