Texas Church Massacre: Are Prayers Enough?

Carl Elfstrom

If enough people ignore someone on a blog and quit responding to him he will eventually go away.

Carl Elfstrom

There wasn't any reported violence at the Woodstock festival, and there was about 600,000 people in attendance. Go figure.

Linda

Dan, are you implying that gun control is responsible for their orderly and peaceful behavior and if they had guns, their actions would have been totally different?

Dan Atatakai

No, LInda. I am not saying that it is gun control being solely responsible. I am saying that the Japanese culture is more connected and not so much "individualistic" as one finds in the U.S.

I DO believe, however, that without the strict gun control Japan does have, there would be many more deaths and injuries due to firearms.

John Owens

Dan, I don't see what Japan has to do with the discussion, but if their crime is lower than ours, I would think it is because their character is better than ours, because they have not abandoned older values to trade them for lack of values.

Dan Atatakai

John - yes, part of it IS because the social structure of Japan IS different than the young United States.

The issue at hand, however, is about gun control, and that in Japan, even though they have about half the population of the U.S. living on an area about the size of the state of California, injuries and deaths due to firearms is almost zero, attributed directly to the education, liability and registration of firearms and other weapons.

Linda

Dan, how can you attribute less deaths by firearms in Japan as only due to a result of gun control without considering other means of deaths in that country (like poisonings)? John has a point in that their culture has a huge influence too. Not only do they acknowledge traditional values, they are well endoctorinated at an early age to roboticly abide by the tiniest rules with little freedom because of their over population. Extreme congestion calls for extreme compliance to the most minute regulations, which we would think are ridiculous here. Additionally, they are a shame based society instead of a guilt based one like us. Social perspectives say if someone does something wrong here, there is something wrong with only that person. In a shame based society, when someone does something wrong, there is something wrong with that family. Japan has been without a military for a long time so perhaps they have lost a degree of a sense of self defense too. There are too many factors for you to assert such a direct correlation as a meaningful argument for gun control.

John Owens

Dan, you're saying that the murder rate is low because of some kind of gun control. I don't think it has anything to do with that. The availability of weapons and the number of attacks are not directly related at ALL. Period. Everybody I know from my area has had weapons available all of their lives and have never killed anyone except for those who were in the military and killed in warfare. Not ONE person I personally know has committed a murder, unless you count a black church brother of mine NOT from my area, who killed the man who raped his younger sister and went to prison for several years, and he didn't do it with a gun.

John Owens

Dan, gun-grab advocates tout Japan's crime rate as a DIRECT result of their gun restrictions, and there is no real way to prove the two have any relationship at all. What about crimes that do NOT involve weapons? Are those rates lower in Japan, also? If so, that would be evidence that it has nothing to do gun control. Plenty of countries with absolute gun control have high crime. Our own gun-crime rates would be very low on an international scale without our most heavily-populated democrat-controlled cities in the count. I know that isn't FAIR, but it's sort of an important thing to point out. The state of Alabama has a very low gun-crime percentage, by and large, but of course, some places, Birmingham, Hobson City, places in Montgomery Country, have high gun crime rates due to minorities shooting at each other.

It would not be fair to take MY rights to save THEIR lives.

John Owens

I didn't say I want no part of those countries. They are wonderful places to visit. I would like to go to former Yugoslavia, Catalonia, the Basque country of Spain, the Mediterranean, a few select places. When it comes to war or trade, a reliable ally is a good thing to have. I don't want to LIVE there. They are different. I don't belong there. I don't even belong in New York City, or Atlanta, or Los Angeles, although I can function quite well there. I just don't see any earthly reason why people who come from those places would want to change ours to be more like them. It is even more insane to hear a US citizen use the example of some other country to try to warp this one into being more like another one, when people are still trying to come here by the hundreds of thousands.

I heard the president of Mexico on a clip saying it was cruel for the US to send Mexican citizens back to Mexico. I know what he meant by that, but it sounded like he was saying Mexico is a cruel place to live (which it often is).

Chuck

You are incorrect about John's reasoning. What Liberals refer to as "diversity" actually destroys diversity. We should be able to go to a country and feel like we are ACTUALLY in that country. If I go to a European country, I don't want to feel like I am in an Arab country...... if I go to China, I want to feel like Im in China......If I go to America, I want to feel like Im in America.

The false Liberal version of diversity is the equivelant of uprooting the Botanical Gardens, just throwing all plants into one area so you cannot even tell what is what.

This planet is a living library, and Liberal "diversity" wants to destroy it. We learn from different cultures, peoples and values. It all means nothing if thrown together into a big meaningless mess.

Linda

John, I'm sure Mexico will miss Mexicans here illegally, because they were sending money back home, untaxed, while using free public services here. IMO, this, dropping oil prices, and legalized marijuana here is surely putting a huge dent in their leader's corruption revenues. We can't blame some nice guy for coming here to feed their family, but we can't afford to take on the problem. Mexico looks like a capitalist country w/o the 2nd amendment.

Linda

Chuck, I guess your preference is to live and experience one culture, and I'm sure you can find it somewhere in the US. I think diversity is wonderful. There is an Asian section near me, a Spanish area, as well as different stores from other nationalities peppered all over town. I love to visit them from time to time. I love cultural diversity instead of the same thing over and over, which gets boring when you're use to diversity. BTW, what would be an indication of American culture if it isn't diversity?

Linda

Tiger Moon2, I am definitely for the 2nd amendment, with no need for extra controls, while we have a capitalist society. I've never waivered from that. Even so, I think gun control has been shown to work in "democratic socialist" countries, but we do not have a socialist mentality here and that makes a huge difference.

Thanks for the quote about our values are acquired by extremists and moderates give stability. I think repercussions of our actions is how we acquire our values but extremist probably help define our values more, and keep us more aware of them. Moderates do probably keep more stability.

I have come across someone recently that I just don't care to post with anymore. Our styles clash or something, so I just ignore him. He still has posts directed toward me. I can't control him but I can control myself and I just choose to ignore his posts. It's a free world and he can certainly post, others can respond, and I can ignore. It's all good. I, personally have no problems with John Owens even though we disagree a lot. You may have no problems with the guy I do. I enjoy your posts and interact with those I want and those that will let me. There are people that don't respond to me either and that is fine with me.

John Owens

Hey, Chump. Stay as ignorant as you want. I have to go offline for the weekend. Other things to do. Mess with me, I'll mess back. You started it. So YOU STFU if you like. I'll be back Monday, and embarrass you then.

Dan Atatakai

John Owens - Silly me! I thought this was a discussion panel, not a petty attempt at insult board. Instead of getting your hormones all out of whack, how about calming down this weekend and then, if you feel calm and mature enough, maybe then it would be a good time to discuss this subject in a mature manner.

TigerMoon2

And there you have it. Embarrass ME? You only embarrass yourself. It's not looking good for you.

John Owens

Dan, apparently you are another chump. You just saw this other jerk insult me and then you take his side. Like Chihuahuas barking at a pit-bull from behind a fence. Blow it out your back-side.

Dan Atatakai

John - I was addressing the BOTH of you, not just you. The issue is that one should remain adult/mature about this, don't you think?

Yet, you even attempt to insult (sorry, not successful!) me. I suggest you keep it in an adult manner.

John Owens

You said you were addressing both of us, but you only used MY name, Dan. I'm sorry you did it that way, because it made me think you were talking only to ME. I guess I was being IGNORANT for thinking that.

You know, I enjoy talking to you, and I have not been insulting to you ( I don't believe). In fact, the only people I insult are people who are insulting me, but every time anyone criticizes the insults, THEY CRITICIZE ME, and not the person insulting me. Why do you suppose that is? It's not as if I'm imagining that. It is written here for everyone to see. Someone will just jump in with an insult and if I jump back, someone else tries to scold me for it. It's as if they are taking sides, ignoring the ignorance of my detractors and labeling me the aggressor. I admit, I AM aggressive, but not generally abusive. Like most old men, I am opinionated, but being opinionated in and of itself doesn't mean I am wrong.

This twerp just all of a sudden, at the end of the day, tries to tell me to shut up. He's so obsessed he's counting my posts. I don't count them. I just respond to others. Then he tells me to shut up. IT'S A BLOG! If everybody agrees there is nothing to discuss. If people like me shut up, EVERYONE on here LOSES.

It's not as if I type like Maher, and my grammar and composition are really above average. I think about what I say, and I have a world of life experience and hundreds of hundreds of books and thousands of hours of listening to NPR and talk radio behind my observations.

John Owens

Bite me, Tiger. It's an open blog. You didn't answer because you have no words worth speaking. I won't give the blogs over to people like you. If you think you are so damned superior, you should go to a MENSA blog.

TigerMoon2

People like me?

TigerMoon2

As you have nearly 50 posts in this thread, I don't think it's me who is feeling superior.

Carl Elfstrom

Grant me the Serenity to accept the people I cannot change, Courage to change the person I can, and Wisdom to know that person is me. Amen and Blessed Be!

John Owens

"Yea, a man may say, 'Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show you my faith BY my works.' " The Apostle James

John Owens

You seem to think that if big businesses pay out money, that cost is not going to come back on the consumers and employees. That's not how it works. If they pay 35% corporate taxes, anyone who buys anything related to that corporation pays that 35% tax FOR them. That is what socialists cannot seem to grasp-- If you go up any amount on anything, the people who WORK are the ones who pay for it. That doesn't matter to those who don't-- they aren't working or paying, anyway. The corporation doesn't care, they just go up on their prices and hold back on their wages. Their shareholders don't care, because they get paid anyway. The only ones it hurts are those who work, WHICH ARE THE VERY ONES ABOUT WHOM THE SOCIALISTS CLAIM TO CARE SO MUCH.

And STOP saying healthcare, please. That is a bullshit term for an unlimited amount of government subsidies and freebies. I don't need "healthcare". You don't either. You need to take care of yourself, sure. Sometimes you need a cast, an ex-ray, stitches, medicine, a shot. Those are definite, FINITE things that can be understood and limited.

"HEALTHCARE" is another word for socialism. If you care about peoples' health, teach them not to fornicate, steal, murder, use recreational drugs, drive fast, pollute the air, and litter. Teach them to bathe and brush their teeth and dispose of waste in an environmentally conscious manner. Teach men and women that if they are going to make babies they should provide a loving environment and shelter for those babies. That would pay huge dividends toward health, mental health, and crime, which are all related.

If you want to prevent crime and mental illness, reinstitute the family values we had as a society before the government started the "war on poverty". Back then, everybody had two parents, unless one died. There was less crime, less mental illness, less suicide.

Linda

No John, I want employers to pay for what they are using up or taking for their benefit and people to be compensated for what they are giving their employers. The businesses want to be paid if anyone takes something from them, so why allow them to impose permanent, often chronic, health issues without any compensation? What makes them entitled? If the government would use the taxes they get now much more efficiently, stop buying off votes in the house and senate for a particular bill, change incentives to save money instead of to spend more, stop giving away billions in foreign aid, and other foolish fiscal behaviors, we could reallocate funds to healthcare subsidies without going up on taxes. Subsidies implies there is accountability on the individual also, as they have to pay too. It would not be free.

John Owens

Linda, I would like what you are saying to come true, but government cannot do anything efficiently. They can't run a railroad. They can't run a medical care system. They can't even build highways efficiently. Local governments can't operate a water and sewer system in a healthy and efficient manner. The EPA cannot perform an environmental cleanup. Land management cannot manage land.

Sure, if an employee is hurt or made chronically ill at work, the employer should be responsible for that. That is actually a biblical principal, in the Torah. I am personally opposed to subsidies, but I suppose if EVERY single person got the same medical care, the rich and powerful would see to it that we all got GREAT medical care. However, history tells us it will never work out that way. You would always have lazy, selfish, or otherwise irresponsible people sucking up the benefits while the chronically ill and needy suffer and die waiting for them. God bless you for caring, though.

Linda

John, we CAN become financially efficient by implementing proper incentives. Those that save money without hurting their program are rewarded and those that waste money will be warned, then fired. Now there are actually incentives to waste money! Elected officials we are unable to warn or fire, should have their waste of money behavior posted very visibly in many public arenas all over our nation. If their constituents don't care because they receive the benefits, then that state will be the butt of jokes on prime time TV. ridiculed elsewhere too, and that senator / representative has no shot for any office beyond that one. Our government could run itself more capitalistic. We may have to make the line of authority more decentralized because we've increased our population so fast. If things like that don't work, then we may have to face the fact we have reached the Peter Principle level, where our expansion in population and complexity has raised beyond the ability of a leader to adequately run our country effectively. I'm sure no one wants to think about that, and Americans are known for never giving up hope and overcoming.

BTW, you do know that Donald Trump, a conservative, is for universal healthcare like Canada, right? He acknowledged that it would be impossible for him to implement such a transition in one or two terms of office but still asserts that we need to attend to the health of our people.

Also John, you previously said you had seen the Challenger explode on TV in school and was able to deal with it fine. You must realize: 1. You are not like everyone else 2. That is not a fair analogy to being in the Texas church massacre or personally witnessing any other lethally violent crime with the intentions to seriously hurt, maim or kill. 3. You had no personal connections to the victims of the Challenger. 4. The rocket accident didn't trigger any previous rocket accidents where someone close to you had died. Considering issues like that make a huge difference.

Paster Quinn

Linda, his mind is made up you cannot confuse him with facts. When they blame real solvable issues on 50 years of Liberal Policies, there is not point in continuing the conversation.

Linda

Parson, John is actually proving my point, that investments into aggressively addressing mental health issues, with results oriented techniques, would resolve a lot of problems beyond prevention of violent crimes. John claims lazy people would just take advantage of the system and suck all the resources from those that really need it. But those "lazy" people have issues too... and psychological diagnostic tests can amazingly tell when someone is lying for an advantage. It has a diagnosis, malingering. Of course there are priorities for resources but many would not need a therapist. A facilitator would work, at far less costs... perhaps even use volunteers. Having "lazy" people feel good about themselves, ready to work with a purpose, increasing self esteem is a win - win for EVERYONE.

As for gun control, I think the 2nd amendment is a must to balance the powers in a capitalistic country. However, aggressive mental health intervention for early signs of disorders leading to violence would make these violent crimes far less pervasive. Even so, my position is that obviously gun control works in a socialized country but would be very oppressive for the common man in the US. Communism would probably be better than strict gun control if allowed in a capitalistic society. Many financially privileged people would implement politicians to give them the right to take as they pleased from the disadvantaged. Our capitalistic government is truly a remarkable piece of art, yet the only way it will work is if the regular people are given a way to "balance" the powers given to the government. The 2nd amendment is our last resort and good the very wealthy and the government know we have it. Terrorists would just use bombs anyways, as they do in some socialized countries.

I have posts being held by the moderator... I wonder why?

John Owens

Damn, Parson, two adults here trying to have a conversation and you're just trying to be scrotum.

Chuck

Parson Golden.....I just looked at your link. And you think those charts demonstrate any kind of marked change in homicide rate?? Theres barely any real difference from year to year. And I bet if the charts went back even further, it would all basically look the same as well.

Another piece of information for you. Sites like Factcheck, Snopes, Metabunk etc are not valid sources of information. I'm in finance, and once worked for a major British based public relations firm here in NYC. These websites are for profit PR contractors that only take Liberal clients, and specialize in Left leaning agenda, more specifically that which comes down from United Nations goals.

Yes, Liberalism takes its marching orders from the U.N.....or The Empire, as we Star Wars fans call it. The UN wants everyone on Earth disarmed except for police and military, so that they can control the world stage.

Originally, Bill Clinton wanted to create a "Ministry of Truth" to act as a gatekeeper for all information, to determine if it was true or not (which would be run by the UN).

Fortunately, enough people read George Orwell's "1984" and knew it would be a dictatorship nightmare. So instead, they funded all these "fact checking" websites to act as if they were independent sources. And people have essentially fallen for it (like yourself).

Even Wikipedia can be changed for the right price.

John Owens

Victorian crime and murder rates rise higher Samantha Hutchinson The Australian 12:00AM June 16, 2017

The murder rate has jumped by almost 30 per cent in the past year in Victoria, where a violent crime wave continues to worsen and incidences of robbery, carjacking and assault are on the rise.

The state’s overall crime rate rose by 4 per cent in the year to April to 543,391 offences in figures compiled by the Crime Statistics Agency.

Violent crimes including murder recorded a 28 per cent jump to 69 deaths, while the CSA recorded almost 3000 cases of ­aggravated robbery and steep rises in the crime rates in some ­regional areas, including Ararat, the ­Latrobe region and Greater Shepparton...

John Owens

Parson, you are quoting someone else. If you just google Australian crime rates for yourself, you can educate yourself on it, rather than being spoonfed pablum.

Paster Quinn

Gee Chuck, I love it when you can post crap, when asked to post a source for your crap, you can skate around it and not do it, then when a source is posted that debunks your crap, you simply state that the widely accepted source in fact not valid, and offer more unsubstantiated "facts" that the sources are promoting a "left leaning agenda". Without a valid source to back up your comments, you have nothing but propaganda on your side, you sir are a fraud.

John Owens

I posted, Parson, but Joseph or someone is moderating and not sending it through.

November 15, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Victorian crime and murder rates rise higher Samantha Hutchinson The Australian 12:00AM June 16, 2017

The murder rate has jumped by almost 30 per cent in the past year in Victoria, where a violent crime wave continues to worsen and incidences of robbery, carjacking and assault are on the rise.

The state’s overall crime rate rose by 4 per cent in the year to April to 543,391 offences in figures compiled by the Crime Statistics Agency.

Violent crimes including murder recorded a 28 per cent jump to 69 deaths, while the CSA recorded almost 3000 cases of ­aggravated robbery and steep rises in the crime rates in some ­regional areas, including Ararat, the ­Latrobe region and Greater Shepparton…

John Owens

The moderator allowed it through, and it is much more current than what you are referencing. There is also a chart there, which makes it easy to read and understand.

James

@ Chuck... Wiki & copious other sites can be changed. Citations, references and sources are invaluable to secure some form of "possibility" of accuracy.

Paster Quinn

John Owens: I did so, perhaps this from the Government of Australia? Or is that fake news to you?

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

“The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968.”

Read more at https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2017/11/texas-church-massacre-are-prayers-enough/#peJvgDWeY61GpcUO.99

Paster Quinn

Gee, 69 deaths in Victoria, vs. More than 33,000 people die in firearm-related deaths in the United States every year, according to an annual average compiled from C.D.C. data.. See the problem?

Paster Quinn

The modrperator is likely holding it because your link is behind a paywall so the information you offer cannot be verified.

John Owens

Those are 12 and 15 years ago, Parson. Did you notice that?

Paster Quinn

Thank you, I did not notice that, here is the 2014 update, latest years Australia publishes statistics for. http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

In the 90's the homicide rate was a little over 1.75/100,000. in 2014 it was 1/100,000. Following the National Agreement on Firearms, the number of deaths by firearms in Australia, initially declined slowly.

Overall homicides immediately saw a decrease of less than one per 100,000 persons. Over the medium term homicide by firearm dropped from 1/200,000 to 1/670,000. (Alpers, Philip. "Guns in Australia — Firearms, gun law and gun control".)

Between 2010-2014, gun related homicides across all of Australia had dropped to 30-40 per year. Firearms in 2014 were used in less than 15% of homicides, less than 0.1% of sexual assaults, less than 6% of kidnapping/abductions and 8% of robberies.(Statistics, c=AU; o=Commonwealth of Australia; ou=Australian Bureau of. "Main Features - Key Findings". www.abs.gov.au.)

Since the 1996 legislation the risk of dying by gunshots was reduced by 50% in the following years and has stayed on that lower level since then.

John Owens

Did you notice your stats come from BEFORE the gun confiscation? And my post was not behind a paywall. I copied it from the page which was free.

Paster Quinn

Thank you, corrected in my post above. (waiting moderation)

Chuck

Forget Australia.....how about America. It is a FACT that American cities with tight gun laws have the highest homicide by gun rates (Chicago, Detroit, etc.). So obviously, gun laws only take guns away from law abiding citizens....in case you didn't know, criminals don't follow gun laws.

Secondly, almost all national gun confiscation in history has been done by dictatorships in order to disarm the public....Nazis, Communists, etc. America is the OPPOSITE of such places.

We have guns in case government becomes tyrannical, and needs to be put down when they start violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Sooo..... seeing as we have an ever increasing tyranny in America, and that same tyranny wants to take guns away......well, you do the math.

John Owens

Parson, why don't you talk about gun control in Mexico, our nearest neighbor to the south? Pour out some statistics on the violent crime rate in Mexico, and use that as an example. Civilians in Mexico are absolutely forbidden to have firearms OR ammunition.

Paster Quinn

Because Mr. Owen, my comments are regarding your comments about the crime rate in Australia vs the US in a post ban era. You are attempting to derail the conversation by pivoting to Mexico and US Cities. You cannot make an untrue claim, and when called on that claim, simply divert the argument elsewise. At least not and keep me in the conversation.

John Owens

I'm sorry, Parso,

What untrue claim did I make? Can you cite it? (Oh, I left the N off your name on purpose, since you left the S off mine. I was not the one who brought up Australia as a wonderful example of how gun confiscation creates Utopia. I brought up Mexico as a counter to it, though. If you can't deal with it, I understand. It doesn't fit your narrative, just like the news article I cited regarding Australia's crime rate doesn't. Now, YOU are deflecting regarding Mexico.

I told you, citing stuff doesn't make things true or not. You can find sources that say anything you want to cite. Truth just IS, and doesn't care what you say or think. You are starting to unravel a little bit. Best take a break. I cannot devote all my time to these discussions. I have to do them between other tasks.

John Owens

Parson, using words like "disingenuous" is disingenuous. My comment about ethnic minorities was to illustrate how MY civil rights are equal to THEIRS, NOT to criticize THEM, so NO, I am not deflecting or trying to create a common enemy AS YOU ARE.

You think the 2nd amendment is the common enemy. It is not. The common enemy is leftist thinking. The crime and insanity we experience are the results of a generation and a half of liberal policies, which have trapped minorities in poverty and herded them into government housing, dissolved families, spread venereal diseases, catastrophically increased unwed motherhood and dependence on government handouts, encouraged criminal behavior, and created more mental illness.

As for citing sources, if I cite anything or anyone refuting what you are saying, you will just reject the source. Disingenuous. You can find someone to reference anything, true or not.

Paster Quinn

John Owens You cite a real peer-reviewed source that stays on topic with real statistics and I will not reject it.

John Owens

Ok, Parson, who "peer-reviewed your "fact-checker"? You know that's how false reports become common knowledge, don't you?

John Owens

Nothing wrong with that, except it's another big-assed government agency waiting to be built and grow and grow for 100 years and self-propagate until the rules are so strict and hoops through which to jump so numerous that people will take their weapons underground.

John Owens

Correct, Linda. Sure, the citizens cannot be armed as well as the government, but they CAN be armed well enough to make it very very messy if there is a conflict, and even oppressive governments do not want to be seen slaughtering their subjects with bombs and rockets. A man or woman with a good deer-hunting bolt-action rifle can fire from a defensive position and easily kill at 500 or more yards. A handful of people so armed can control a fairly large area if there are no aircraft used. Civilian drones can be used for observation, and the larger ones can be easily fitted to drop grenades in glass jars, so they don't explode until they hit the ground. We don't need tanks or helicopters to make it messy. Neither the Soviet Union nor the NATO coalition could subdue Afghanistan.

As for the mental disorders, the biggest, most prevalent one is liberalism, which creates the atmosphere for most of the rest of them. If we stamp out liberalism, most of the others will improve slowly over time.

Linda

John, you're saying the biggest mental disorder is compassion? Seriously?!? Accountability balances compassion and vice versa. You may be getting a little too far out in the deep end on the right, so swim back to your left some so your feet can touch the ground and you won't drown. It's at these rare moments I worry about you.

John Owens

I never mentioned compassion, Linda. I said "liberalism", as in, the political movement of the left, which only pretends compassion and is very selective even then. Compassion is desirable. One should have compassion even for one's enemies.

Linda

John, the liberal side is well known for their compassion... yes, sometimes beyond what is feasibly possible and sometimes to the point of enabling. Isn't that their mental disability you were referencing? If so, I think it is unfair because the extreme right is a mirror image. If not, what is it?

John Owens

The liberal side is NOT well known for their compassion, Linda. They tout their OWN compassion-- for murderers, for instance by not wanting a death penalty. For illegal aliens for not wanting them to go home. For people who don't want to work because they just don't want to work. For muslim refugees who are able-bodied men of fighting age who want to rape our daughters and kill us all. Compassion for pedophiles who wish to steal our children for their twisted carnal desires. Compassion for women who get pregnant when they have no desire or ability of raising a child.

Liberals are not compassionate on the victims of criminals. They are not compassionate on aliens who came here legally nor on the citizens here. They are not compassionate on those who have jobs and pay taxes, since they want to take away their money and give it to those who do not. They do not have compassion on the young women who are raped and brutalized by muslim refugees or illegal immigrants. They do not have compassion on the victims of pedophiles, since they encourage pedophilia by not severely punishing its practitioners. They do not have compassion on aborted babies.

I think you are far too kind to the liberals when you believe their outright lies about compassion. They will beat an old person or a disabled veteran for wearing a MAGA hat.

Linda

John, IMO, there are extremist on both ends. Even so, no need to get so upset at my post. My opinion virtually means nothing. If the big guys in Washington start calling for my opinion or to contribute to their discussions, I'll let you know. Until then, my opinions aren't even worth $.02.

Look John, I only offer another perspective. Of course liberals can only tout their OWN compassion, what other kind is there? Compassion is personal, different for each person, yet people in each party share similar insights and place emphasis on different things. I told you I was in the middle and vote both ways.

Your post didn't say why you think some of their suggestions are so wrong, but I assume it is their lack of fiscal and security considerations, which would be the accountability portion to their position, isn't it? I guess you feel their efforts toward rehabilitation for criminal US citizens are undeserving? That would mean you lean more towards accountability than having that much compassion for them?

IMO, the extreme right mirrors the left from my perspective and how I see the world.

John Owens

I was not, am not upset, and I am telling you why they are not really compassionate. They love the enemies of our society more than the members and contributors. They love evil behavior and hate good. They spray spittle in hatred when they speak of Christians and always pretend to care about the homeless and the misfits and the illegals and the other criminals. But most of them want to spend YOUR money to help others, not their own.

My second paragraph above explains each point of the first. They are the absolute WORST haters on Earth. They are not compassionate.

John Owens

If the left had compassion, they would teach them not to fornicate wantonly, making children who cannot have a mother and father. That would cut down on disease, jealous murders, theft, and children going to Juvenile Detention and eventually jail. They don't care enough to do that. It is compassionate to show people the fruits of their behavior. The left doesn't want to see its own fruit-- a decaying and decadent society full of miserable humans with no sense of decency or honor. A complete squandering of the world the greatest generation left for us.

Dan Atatakai

John - I do not get your statement that Liberals are not compassionate. You are claiming that Muslims want to rape women in the U.S.? Liberals do not want to work but let others do their work? Is that compassionate?

John, can you even give specific examples of your claims? Are you saying you ARE compassionate? To whom? The so-called Christian terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan and members of neo-nazi groups?

Let's stick to the facts. You can start by backing up your claims with specifics, not just the infamous wide paintbrush situation.

Linda

John, I apologize for misinterpreting your post as being upset with mine. That is a problem with written language, sometimes it's hard to tell.

I agree with you on having better values, but good values and bad ones are an opinion. Who would determine that? We are all different and we have to respect that as long as it doesn't impose on other people's rights.

Liberals don't love enemies of our society, but they may be willing to listen to their complaints against us. Only a narcissist thinks they are perfect and above everyone else. How can we help resolve their contention with us if we don't know what it is?

Liberals try to be understanding of the downtrodden so they can find solutions to turn them into upstanding citizens, able and wanting to contribute to society. They never agree that their offense is excusable or acceptable, but think all are worth efforts to rehabilitate them instead of just retribution against them. Yes, I agree they often want to help people beyond our financial means to do so. Both parties are wasteful but liberals do tend to have less accountability on fiscal and results in programs than the right. Even so, Clinton is the only president to balance the budget.

I think some "Christians" can be judgmental. Who are we to judge those that fornicate or have children out of wedlock? If people get diseases from it, then that is the risk they took rather they knew it or not. That is their right. Unfortunately once the kids are here, we can't send them back, but liberals are the biggest proponents to educating and implementing birth control. It's the religious right that has traditionally had strong positions against it. They think abstinence should be taught... which is unrealistic, and imposing values on others that might not want to rush their offspring to get married based on their hormones are working normally.

Liberals are compassionate to victims, want programs to help them, want to hold the perpetrator accountable and justly dealt a fair sentence, but realize the offender has been a victim in the past and is the reason they are now offenders. You probably can't see that.

They never condone Muslims raping women and are usually the ones protesting, wanting our government to intervene in human rights matters... again, usually without consideration to the financial implications of their requests.

I have recently discovered that not all people can see things second person. They know what is right and wrong but have lots of difficulty seeing things from the other person's perspective, if they can at all.

Everyone has different strengths and limitations. Liberals have a different perspective on life than conservatives, and no one is the bad guy... just different. It's like the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant. We are all those 5 blind men.

James

@ Linda & John.. A bit issues in communicating in copious forms is ppl assUme where another may be coming from B4 confirming their assUmptions AND THEN RUN WITH IT, as if it was fact. Many ppl will assUme an-others intentions / point (in part) because THEY would take said path of ego (feelings should be a part of the dialogue, NOT dominate its direction).

Paster Quinn

Your welcome Linda, they twist the meaning and use variations of different definitions to suit their message, and the message too often includes hate and outright lies. When broken down in detail, the most common arguments they offer share similar traits. They are based on cherry picked evidence, hypothetical situations that don’t happen in reality, and flawed reasoning.

When you start to see wild blanket statements like "Democrats are the cause of ...(fill in social issue here)...or Liberals are the cause of..... or claims that "Socialism is re-packaged Monarchy", Liberalism takes its marching orders from the U.N, then it is time to move on. These trolls who refuse to cite credible sources, and claim that all sources are invalid or controlled by the government or liberals, are incapable of serious conversation about any issue.

They try to take advantage of the format or this forum that make it very difficult to follow individual thoughts and threads and they will post 40 of 50 posts of crap that will beleaguer anyone who is trying to follow and make corrections

There is nothing to be gained in continuing to make your point when your words are documented here and can be fact checked by anyone in the future that stumbles upon this page and actually wants to learn the truth. The only logical plan now is to leave their feeble attempts at misinformation behind and go do good work elsewhere.

Chuck

1) There is no "good socialism". Any more than there is any "good cancer".

2) I gave you something to look up (The Fabian Society) in terms of Socialism being repackaged Monarchy. Im guessing you did not.

3) The UN DOES command the agenda of the "Progressive" Liberal movement. They do so through the Counsel on Foreign Relations (CFR)...which is the American sister organization of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (again, Monarchy). Here is a little vid of Hillary Clinton admitting they get their orders from the CFR. Don't believe it? Go look up the CFR member list in America...it speaks for itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RRWHDYM9w8

4) And no, Im not going to do the citing/source legwork for you. Get off your snotty behind, and go FIND IT if you really want the truth. You will appreciate the lesson far more that way.

Tom B

Linda...there was nothing wrong with your post...I do not usually comment on politics, but I will say that if there is no "good" socialism, there is no "good" democracy either...also, the United Nations is ineffectual in political matters...it does some good with UNICEF and other humanitarian organizations...and the concept that so-called "liberals" run this country/world is ludicrous...in the sense of macro-economics the world is run by the Rothschilds and friends, and nothing can be done directly about that...as I often say, the only good anyone can do is to be a loving, caring person, as this has both a temporal and universal effect...try not to be dismayed by bluster and pontification, as you seem intelligent and compassionate...peace...Tom

Linda

Thomas Blumenthal, thank you for your post. The political arena is not my favorite either. Yet you think there are no good governments whatsoever? A manager of mine once said, if I have a complaint of the company, when I come to him with it to have a well thought out solution too. When I tried to think of a solution, I realized why it was the way it was. So realizing there is no perfect way of governing, There is a flip side to the good things, I'm curious as to what your solution is to having a better capitalistic or democratic socialized way of governing? These are my two favorites yet both have their own shortcomings. I like living here but want to retire somewhere like Ecuador.

I think you, like me, give our greatest regards to compassion, yet it is often difficult to discern where compassion turns into enabling. That is often the subject of great debate. Even so, the West Wing TV show said one Jew asked another Jew in a concentration camp why he was praying. He responded he was giving thanks to God. The shocked Jew asked for what is he giving thanks?!? The response was, for not making me like them.

Tom B

Linda...thank you for writing...probably a form of democratic socialism is the best form of government...but the best thing for life is for parents/society to value love and caring over everything (certainly over money)...we are in a period of emotionally absent parenting, and mis-directed education (absurdly, we concentrate on science and math, while virtually ignoring inter-human relationships)...the world is a product of what we are, not vice versa...but most of the world does not understand this...and certainly does not understand the balance of karma over our multiple lifetimes...I wonder how long everything will continue to be backwards...peace...Tom

Linda

Tom, I agree so many things are backwards too! Even so, we have to deal with what "is" the consensus on reality around us in order to interrelate.

Focusing on love without ego interfering is quite a high level of enlightenment. I can see many challenges people have to get there. Some need food, shelter, healthcare, clothing, social acceptance, and / or self esteem. Preservation calls for those needs to invoke the ego to some degree.

Attending to the needs of those people is tricky. When does it become enabling and how far can we go without sinking the ship we are on? If we go down with the ship, what good are we then?

Karma can be ambiguous too. If you kill your enemy to stop him from entering your country to kill others, what is your karma? If you allow your enemy to enter your country and kill hundreds, what is your karma then? The Sufis say the choice between good and "evil" is elementary. Often we have to make a choice between two "evils" and that can be difficult. We are defined by what we do as much as by what we don't do. We are known by our fruits.

The whole family unit is in a transition now. Not sure it is heading for healthier positions, I'm inclined to think the opposite but I come with a preconceived bias.

IOW, Tom, I guess we are all doing the best we can?

Tom B

ULC...where is my last writing to Linda about Christ?...unless writings in this forum falls within the purview of the Alien & Sedition Acts, please do not censor...thank you...Tom

Tom B

ULC...I write in support of Christ and the way he lived his life, and you are still censoring it...is it because I am critical of the hypocrisy of people creating a dichotomy between what Christ showed the world, and their picking and choosing among his spiritual lessons?...Tom

Linda

Tom,. I get what you are saying... I am inclined to believe in reincarnation also... but no one knows this for sure. This life is our only guarantee. People who choose to be unjustly greedy at others great expense have to realize there are repercussions for their actions. Are you really willing to throw your family to the wolves and reward those that did it unjustly?

Sufis say, if an enemy comes into your camp and you kill him, you are guilty of killing one man. If you let him go and he kills 20 people, how many murders did your failure to act let happen? Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils, lest the greater evil prevails. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. If we hadn't taken a stand, we would be speaking German and hailing Hitler now.

Maybe your next life will be better because you did something in this life to guide the world on a better path. I'm not even saying to use the guns but the fact that we have them keeps a capitalistic government more honest. Or to really start a controversy... I'm not opposed to considering a socialist government, because gun control has proven to work with that mentality... but I know that suggestion would go over like a lead balloon.

Tom B

Linda...thank you for writing...I understand what you are saying...the problem is that almost everyone lives in reaction to what other people have or will do...that is not good spiritual living...to feel guilty about one murder is the same as for many murders...it is something that is never justified...someone rather well-known said to turn the other cheek...if you do this, things may not seem great in this lifetime, but they will be "better" in the next...the lesser of two evils is still evil (and, by the way, I do not believe there is any such thing as evil...there is karma, and a limited amount of apparently free choice in this life)...the only "value" in this life is to be caring and loving, regardless of the apparent outcome...I do not understand why we keep reincarnating, instead of staying in the peace of God, but we do, so our object is to create as little negative karma as possible, which is to be as caring and loving as possible...as I have said before, Jesus did not carry a spear...peace...Tom

James

There is a pro & con to carrying a weapon. Altho Jesus took his path to be as HE chose. This personal choice to make a public statement to the masses is a great point. To let egos run the world & enslave others in fear is unacceptable. I personally find it unjust to let a crime flourish (stand by while A-holes abuse an Amish's horse) because they can & know the Amish will do nothing. Good Karma for helping a fellow traveler (tampering with their path) or bad karma for decking the horse abuser. Who shall make the call when the $$$ changers tables need tipped over & then mitigate ones Karma. In a perfect world, all arms should be laid-down as Jesus displayed.

John Owens

Tom's all caught up in the ether, J. Everything physical is an ego construct to him. I don't know how all the spiritual stuff can be anything but ego, but that's his take, anyway.

John Owens

Not so, Parson. She didn't say "per capita" or any other qualifier, and it is ALL beside the point, unless you want to go to Australia. This isn't Australia. We don't have any marsupials, except opossums, and we don't have mass gun confiscation, and we WILL NOT have it, so what they do in Australia is a MOOT POINT.

Paster Quinn

Wrong John, She said "they don’t have the gin violence we do" and by any measure she is exactly correct.

You said "the population of Australia is like, equal to North Dakota"

You are wrong, the population of North Dakota is 757,952 (2016)

The population of Australia is 24.13 million (2016

Population studies are indeed made per 100,000 people.

John Owens

Parson, I read what she wrote, and since you looked up those population figures FOR me, as I knew some anal retentive person would, you made my point for me, and you are just being argumentative for argument's sake. I am going to take a very late lunch.

Paster Quinn

Ok, so you admit that you are a liar, who makes stuff up and leaves others to fact check. I will not continue conversations with admitted liars.

John Owens

You are soooo impotent. Jerk.

Paster Quinn

Ah, yes, finally, slander becomes the tool of the loser of the debate.

John Owens

More mental impotency showing on you. This is what happens when you just smart off without any thought behind it to back it up, Parson. Try thinking before you show your asininity. You'll still be a jerk, but fewer people will know.

James

Post a source? Lets interview any criminal ready to do the deed? Would they pick a church where every one had a gun? Or a church where all were unarmed? Most times, crime likes the path of least resistance. IE: Tx & Montana are two USA state that have very low gun crime.

Linda

J, you are so right about a criminal choosing a church where there are no guns vs, one with lots of guns. It got me thinking... I have a small home in the city and a little cabin in the country, same state, Florida, with very liberal gun laws.

However, VERY FEW city people have guns, and there is a LOT of crime, including lots of murders and even police officers get shot rather frequently. I don't know why it seems only the criminals have guns in the city. This might explain the left's perspective for the need of gun control.

EVERY ONE of my neighbors have guns where I have a small cabin in the country, usually lots of them. They are ALL very friendly, respectful, and give no reason to be afraid of them in any way. There is virtually no crime and I've never heard of a murder there. About the only violent crime, there is maybe a very rare bar room brawl or an isolated incidence of domestic violence, but nothing lethal. Maybe this is the right's perspective for endorsing no gun control.

John Owens

It has been proven that when honest citizens are armed, criminals will go elsewhere to commit crimes.

James

Post a source? I'll post my 2 cents. Look up gun crimes for states with stricter gun laws. IE: Montana & Tx are very low in mass killings. Liberal gun laws? Hmmmm I shall. Simplistically put, would a mass shooter target unarmed ppl in a church or target a shooting range? How about we ask for citations & proof that indicates crime decreased in areas people could not defend themselves.

Linda

OMG Tom, that is what I've been saying but no one listens! What you're saying has wonderful long term implications, yet we need something for more imminent situations to target those on the brink of committing violent acts. I suggested we implement an assertive identification program for signs of mental disorders that have a high propensity to escalate into violent crimes. Then to do a diagnosis, treatment with result oriented therapy, ongoing support and monitoring in a very compassionate way that strengthens their self esteem, all free of charge. That would be a win - win for everyone and gun control would be a mute subject.

Tom B

Linda...what you are saying would only work if we committed the time and money to integrate therapy into our educational system, and the parents...but that is a temporal solution, anyway...please think about this: people quote Christ, but they do not respect him...if they respected him, they would live similar lives...they would be loving and caring, regardless of the "consequences"...but they do not do this...instead, they quote him when it is convenient, and go out and criticize and harm other people when it is not convenient to be like him...people think that self-preservation means physical self-preservation, so the principles of Christ go out the window when they are not convenient (it is just a degree of the attitude of the Mafia)...Christ lived and died with his principles; people only live with them when it is convenient and not uncomfortable...that is unfortunate, but it is part of their karma as they go through the many, many incarnations we all experience...think about it, and have a good night...Tom

Tom B

ULC...again, I ask you to stop the censorship...Tom

Linda

Thomas, I wrote on a couple of posts that I thought they were censoring me too.

However, I must apologize to the ULC moderator!

Because of threads within threads I thought I had put a post where I did not, then I blamed it on censorship.

So sorry ULC moderator and I ask for grace in my unfounded claims.

I was horrified once I had made the discovery.

I don't see what they could possibly censor in your posts. Are you sure it wasn't a post you put somewhere else. We tend to stray some from the topic so it becomes hard to remember what was posted where.

Linda

Tom, I'm not talking of putting it into our educational system. There's no time for that in regards to people on the brink of violent crimes.

Initially employers, teachers, judges, wardens, counselors, and others could be offered free seminars that could identify early signs of behaviors that could possibly escalate to extreme violence. The person would then be diagnosed and if necessary, immediately assisted in a very respectful, compassionate manner. Helping improve their coping skills and transforming their understanding of their frustrations, while assisting in areas they need help and ongoing support. This could be implemented fairly fast.

Respecting our diversity in faiths or choices to be atheist / agnostic, how would you implement your suggestion quickly, Tom? We would need to get everyone on the same page as quickly as possible and I think an aggressive effort in evangelizing to make EVERYONE in the same Christian thought has proven not to work so far. Even so, I'm listening to you...

Tom B

Linda...Happy Thanksgiving...the reality is that nothing can be done quickly about societal issues...I understand that some who comment on this site feel my comments are too far out/impractical, but I feel constrained to tell what I believe is the truth...otherwise I see no point in commenting...this "world" is essentially a kind of laboratory to work out karmic issues, and that can only be done on an individual basis, by each of us becoming more loving and caring...if we want to affect society, we need to take our caring and loving and apply it in group settings...what this can mean in the educational system is to fight for constructive modification of curriculum, to include reducing the current emphasis on science, technology and money, in favor of compassion...this should include therapy and far more interaction among students, parents and staff...it would include educating students to later be better parents themselves (instead of the present technologically/entitlement education being taught)...this is a decades-long project, but absolutely worthwhile...the world is presently too fixated on rapid resolution of what are really long-term problems (including, for example, terrorism as a way of living)...I am sorry I can not provide short term solutions (I tell people that every day on the projects I am working on in my town)...again, pause and have a Happy Thanksgiving; I enjoy your comments...Tom

Linda

We can institute mental health w/o drug dependencies, unless they have schizophrenia or significant neurological disorder. Helping with better coping skills for resolving mounting conflict and frustrations would go a long way and could be offered by just a trained facilitator once a diagnosis is made. It could also reduce drug dependencies and tons of benefits for the communities. A return to conservative values lowers suicides? How? Traditional families? Not if they're dysfunctional. John, what could be better to detour suicides than addressing their mental health?

John Owens

Don't just be stubborn, Linda. EVERYBODY knows that a child from a family with no dad in the picture is statistically much more likely to be in trouble, make bad grades, use drugs, and end up in jail. EVERYBODY knows that. If they don't, it is only because they won't admit it.
Children who grew up in traditional homes didn't need safe spaces, because they were USUALLY better adjusted. Yes, it lowers suicide. Look at the statistics. If you are a liberal, you are supposed to LOVE statistics. That might not apply if those statistics tell you something you don't want to hear, though.
Strong families raise strong, RESILIENT individuals. That is not propaganda or fantasy or myth. We WATCHED the space shuttle explode while we were in school, and had no counselors, didn't go home, no psychologists, no safe spaces. People were OBVIOUSLY better equipped for life then--.
We are now reaping the fruits of the liberal dreams, with weak, insane, useless people, who were malformed and maleducated through no fault of their own, and all the liberals can think of is to throw more money at the problems, rather than address the roots of the problems.

Just because a family is traditional doesn't mean it is dysfunctional. If it isn't traditional, it is almost always dysfunctional, and it creates dysfunctional people.

Linda

John, of course traditional values are ideal but we don't live in a perfect world, right? It is often impossible to foresee infidelity, drug use, domestic violence, death, and other issues before marriage. If you're from a functional traditional family and your marriage is one also, you hit the jackpot.

My family was traditional, lower socioeconomic, had infidelity, domestic violence, and highly dysfunctional but they stayed together. I always loved them and know they always loved me. My situation was far from ideal but gave me compassion, understanding, and how to overcome hurdles that people from ideal families probably can't even imagine.

Luckily I always did very well in school, put myself through college, got a few amazing jobs, became financially stable, and can thank several people for being corner stones in my life that allowed that to happen. I shutter to think what would have happened if I had not known them or had significant learning disabilities. Many from my neighborhood were far less fortunate even though fundamentally they were far more capable. We can thank the conservative mindset for their oppression and lack of support in investing in them to make the world a better place.

Politically I am in the middle of the road and vote both ways. IMO, liberals focus on compassion, conservatives focus on accountability, and both are important. Having conservatives in their ivory towers making policies for the common man often lacks any understanding of the real world in which most of us live.

John Owens

Linda, in case you haven't noticed, LIBERALS also inhabit the ivory towers, know nothing of the real world, and LIBERALS are more likely to think they know best how to control our lives. Have you listened to Nancy Pelosi? Diane Feinstein? Hillary? They don't have enough sense to have driving licenses or even to walk down a street without an escort. You must also remember that the only real long-term difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats want to hurry into socialist totalitarianism and Republicans want to move into it very slowly. That's it. Most of the big politicos all go to the same country clubs, sex parties and bath-houses, Bohemian Grove and all that unsavory stuff. They will lambast one another on the news, then have lunch together and go to one another's parties.

Now, as for your dysfunctional family-- no family is perfect nor does anyone expect it to be. The members fight, they disagree, they take sides, they fool around, they are human in all respects, but because they are a family, somehow the family members usually come out okay-- flawed, but okay. Like you, like me, like most people we know. There was something about that family unit that magically gave us something not everyone has. It's something we can't really quantify, but it's there, just the same. That's why the traditional family unit has survived so many millennia-- because those who do not practice it eventually adopt it or die out.

Linda

Okay John, you're right, there are democrats in ivory towers too, that fail to understand financial implications of their suggestions. BTW, those people aren't smart enough to drive? Really, you'd go there? Unfortunately, there are political extremists on both sides. Yet it tends to be the republicans that are blind to the oppression of our poor because they are struggling so much to give businesses a fighting chance, especially to compete with foreign businesses too. Nowadays it wouldn't surprise me if the government required a permit to put down a stepping stone, so they get more money. I suppose government over imposes on businesses and neglect needs of the poor, causing both sides to blame each other. The truth is, if they could just spend existing tax revenues more efficiently and put proper incentives into their programs that had penalties for wasting money and rewards for saving money, without harming the goal of the program, that would be a step in the right direction. All this arguing between the left and right might be smoke and mirrors of the real problem, no one in government knows how to handle the money. I think that most of us are hoping that Trump's redeeming virtue is he will address necessary infrastructure, remedy poor trade agreements, and take measures to have more financial responsibility and accountability. Although he is brilliant, he has to make tough choices, is use to overriding those he consults if he wants, too concerned about his image, and has very poor diplomacy skills. I'm hoping for the best.

John Owens

Linda, you are a little more to the left than I am, but not very far. I like the thoughts you have put down here. I will be gone now for the weekend.

Chuck

Thanks Guys :)

Linda Happenny

Wow! Who told you that? Millions of people believe and practice Western/modern lifestyles.If you send out energy out, the universe gets it out to where it belongs. That includes prayer, Meditation, etc. Thousands of years of practice, does it look like extinction of the human race is gone?

Bob

John, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in how we are to interpret the Constitution. They have determined that the State can restrict the types of arms that are available to the public. The citizens can, of course, change this, but it would take amending the Constitution. Unless, of course, you do not accept that the Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional issues.

Paster Quinn

John Owens, read the decision from District of Columbia vs. Heller. Justice Scalia clearly said, that. “The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” he wrote in Heller. Specifically, “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.” .

Linda

J, the 2nd amendment wasn't designed for protection against criminals, that was a given. All ten amendments are powers given to the common man to balance the powers of the government If the supreme court passes laws to upset that balance, that would be unconstitutional. I'm sure the case Parson cited secured the balance of powers or it would have been challenged, overturned, or some group is working on it. That's the beauty of our constitution. IMO, the way to stop violent crimes is by implementing aggressive identification and treatment of people with early signs of a violence prone mental illness. Then gun control would be a mute subject.

Paster Quinn

Wait what? You are actually saying that the same constitution that you claim gives you your 2nd amendment rights, and the same constitution that defines the three branches of power that gives the Supreme Court the authority to define that constitution is wrong because you feel that the court does not have the right to define the Constitution? Huh?

And if you claim that the moderators here are selecting you out, then take it up with them.

John Owens

I just said that government in and of itself has no rights, but only responsibilities. They have a right to fulfill their responsibilities. The court cannot just decide something and it be binding because they decided it. It has to ACTUALLY be Constitutional. The Supreme Court is supposed to be limited to interpreting the Constitution and the Amendments. In recent history they have gone beyond their constitutional mandate on several occasions (as have the other branches). All branches of government are only able to do what the people permit them to do. Like the wages of members of Congress-- I don't think they are overpaid if they do their jobs, but they hire staffers to do all their work, and the Constitution does not really speak to that. Therefore, we can make them change their habits, IF WE TRY.

The Constitution does NOT give me rights. Humans are endowed with rights by their Creator. The Constitution LIMITS the Federal Government, and that includes the Supreme Court. They cannot tell me that the Amendments provide for me to have free speech of which they approve, or private property that they do not want, or weapons, but only for hunting or home defense. That is what I am saying.

Without trying to suck up, I enjoy discussing these things with you.

Paster Quinn

John Owens You little play on words is not germane to the conversation. The court expressively said that lawmakers could decide what weapons we the people can own. If lawmakers choose to do their jobs all Military style weapons could be banned.

John Owens

Define military style, Parson. Is that the way they look, or the way they fire?

Paster Quinn

You attempt to deflect the conversation with your "define military style" comment. The Supream Court in that ruling did not make that distinction, they said lawmakers can do so, and in fact did, very specifically in the 1994 AWB. Banned guns were very specifically defined, including specific models.

John Owens

How is it an attempt at deflection when YOU are the one who brought up "military style"? It is not a deflection. "Military style" HAS to be defined if guns of "MILITARY STYLE" are to be banned. Stop dodging honest, legitimate questions by accusing others of deflecting. Plain old talking points do not merit deflection, because they are too simple to rip apart.

Dan Atatakai

John - there are quite a few areas in the U.S. where even the police fear to tread, so to speak, at different times of the day - Watts, CA., Harlem, NY, the Southside of Chicago and many others.

Japan DID welcome me for more than 14 years. If it were not for a combination of events IN Japan (economy and natural disasters), I would still be living there.

John Owens

That's great, Dan. I'm sure I would love Japan. I actually liked Red China, down in Fuzhou, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Not that they are the same. I know that. I would enjoy living in the country more in either of them than the city, but that's beside the point.
My point is, if that seems like a better place, that would be the place for you. I've been a lot of places, and decided the place where I raised my children and buried my loved ones is the place for me. I do not want it to be like another place. If I did, I would go to that other place, and let those who like it here live in the place they know and love.

Since you lived there, you know we are not just like the people of Japan, and I am not speaking of diet, fashion, housing, the outer physical characteristics, but the mindset, philosophy, historical outlook. What works there will not always work here, and vice-versa. Their history is not our history, and their gun laws will not be used here. To speak of it is a moot point. Japan can be wonderful, I agree. But we cannot be Japan, nor should we.

John Owens

The fact that most violence is committed by people who identify as Democrats should be discussed. Most murders, thefts, rapes, and fraud are committed by people who identify as Democrats. Most of the people in prison identify as Democrats. Ergo, if we can reduce the number of people who identify as Democrats, we can reduce ALL MANNER of crime, AND mental illness.

Linda

Really John? Most criminals are democrats? How about Bernie Madoff? How about all those people that tricked people into bad investments and stole thousands of people's retirements and savings for emergencies? Yes, people that are republicans have caused so much financial devastation they've pushed uncountable people to suicides? How about all those failing businesses we were kind enough to bail out that instantly gave multi-millions to the CEO as a bonus for running the business into bankruptcy, and you want to say the democrats are the problem? John, you have to admit there are at least two sides to everything.

Chuck

John is correct Linda....... I work in finance/law. On the low end of the spectrum, poor Democrats commit most all ordinary crime. On the high end of the spectrum, Democrats commit most all white collar crime. Its a fact.

Our wrecked economy is also the product of Leftist policy. Show me a city destroyed, and Ill show you a city run by Democrats.

My second job is as a mental health/substance abuse counselor.... Liberals make up 80% of that as well.

In fact, 95% of all mass shooters and presidential assassins in US history were Democrats (or Communists). All the mass shooters from the beginning of the Obama administration alone, were Democrats and all on SSRI psychotropic medication.

Paster Quinn

John Owens, that comment has nothing to do with any of the previous comments. I answered reveran mary and pointed out why her assessment was incorrect. You comment is meant to deflect conversation and take it in a different direction. Please produce a verifiable source for your comments that less Democrats would equal less crime.

Paster Quinn

Linda, Chucks wild accusations without sources have no meaning When accusations are claimed as fact and are not sourced they are of no more consequence that the rants of a 6th grader on a school yard.

John Owens

Linda, Chuck knows what he is talking about. Parson is getting upset because he doesn't want you to learn to face the truth about democrats. Just google some on it. I'm not making it up. Nearly ALL mass shooting are committed by Democrats. Not conservatives. And not saying Roy Moore is guilt, but HE was a democrat when he supposedly committed the acts of which he is accused.

Paster Quinn

Nope, Parson is not upset, claims without sources are just opinion. Parson is laughing...

John Owens

apics-- took me thirty seconds to google these up: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats/article/2541412 ( this is ONE) the next is a different one, verifiable at the Universities of Pennsylvania's and Stanford's websites.

Professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University, found that in some states, felons register Democratic by more than six-to-one. In New York, for example, 61.5 percent of convicts are Democrats, just 9 percent Republican. They also cited… that 73 percent of convicts who turn out for Presidential elections would vote Democrat.

The study looked at three states which are reminding convicts that they can vote after leaving jail: New York, New Mexico and North Carolina. •New York: 61.5 percent register Democratic, 9 percent register Republican •New Mexico: 51.9 percent Democratic, 10.2 percent Republican •North Carolina: 54.6 percent Democratic, 10.2 percent Republican

(research by two academics, Marc Meredith, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Michael Morse, then of Stanford University. They published a paper in the January 2014 edition of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science)

" "[In New York] ex-felons who are registered overwhelmingly register as Democrats. Of those discharge records that match to at least one voter file record, 61.5 percent match only to Democratic voter records. In contrast, 25.5 percent match only to voter records with no affiliation or an affiliation with a minor party, while 9 percent match only to Republican voter records...

Registered ex-felons in New Mexico tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat: 51.9 percent match to only registered Democrats, 18.9 percent match to only registered Republicans, 21.7 percent match to only individuals registered neither as Democrats nor Republicans, and 7.5 percent match to multiple individuals who affiliate with different parties"

Nov. 18, 2013 - Marc Meredith, PhD  Michael Morse"

" Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, PhD, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California (USC), stated in the article "Study Criticizes Laws on Felon Voting, Democrats, Blacks Hurt, Analysis Says," by Gregory Lewis, published Aug. 25, 2004 in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

"With an election so close, anything that can help your party is good. Sadly, a disproportionate number of felons are African-American and tend to vote Democratic."

Aug. 25, 2004 - Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, PhD "

I COULD GO ON AND ON, APICS, BUT I'M SURE YOU GET THE IDEA.

Have a great weekend, all, and be ever vigilant.

Linda

[quote/]Professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University, found that in some states, felons register Democratic by more than six-to-one Read more at https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2017/11/texas-church-massacre-are-prayers-enough/#jgDhgIlv1aeeSoE8.99 [/quote] (Trying to put things in quotes, hope this works.)

John, how could it be surprising if convicts vote democratic? Do you actually think it is because democrats are going to set them up to be criminals? C'mon, you can't be so far to the right you can't at least see some middle ground.

Incarceration is a real problem here. The US is about 5% of the world's population, yet it has about 20-25% of the incarcerated people in the world! The US has about an 80% recidivism rate. We're doing something wrong.

Convicts are usually from poor backgrounds, in a system that tends to oppress them, so some learn to find a way to eat / live and unfortunately resort to crime. Republicans offer nothing to change the system to allow more opportunity for the poor so they need not resort to crime, and tend to do the opposite. Democrats tend to understand their dilemma and offer solutions.

Many republican criminals tend to have a more sophisticated thug mentality and just hire very proficient lobbyist and such to sway congress into changing the laws so they can steal legally. That is far more devastating than someone who steals a car, a loaf of bread, or writes a bad check... IMO.

I believe in privatizing most government programs, but jail isn't one of them. That's what they are doing now. What incentive does a private enterprise have to reduce their returning "customers." Republicans tend to focus on retribution and democrats tend to focus on rehabilitation. The ladder makes more sense for those that actually "care about people," so, of course convicts wanting to be law abiding will tend to vote democratic.

James

"Banning" assault type weapons will do little to curb said violent manifestations. A stolen car, parents knives, illegally obtain assault weapon. 3d printers. Its PPL that kill & follow few if any laws in doing so.

Paster Quinn

You are attempting to quote a comment made in 2015 by then presidential candidate Ted Cruise. His comments have been determined as innacurate and cherry picked from a study that had nothing to do with partisanship. The authors of the study ( one was Morse as you cut and pasted) said that the results "doesn’t mean criminality is associated with partisanship".

Morse himself said: “Cruz is misinterpreting our research,We only calculate the registration rates by party for discharged felons, and do not break this down by type of crime … So our work cannot speak to the partisanship of ‘violent criminals.’ ”

Moreover, Morse published another paper in March 2014 with data from three other states — Iowa, Maine and Rhode Island — and the results were completely different.

John Owens

I wasn't ATTEMPTING to quote anything. I copied and pasted from the published articles, which I found very quickly and easily on Google, because someone was deflecting and wanting references, which they handily reject and try to refute by citing something else. Which is what I said earlier, you can find someone to quote regarding anything you want, but just because a lot of people say something, does not make it true. Men can't become women, but a lot of people say they can. People used to say the Earth was flat. A lot of people say the Tea Party is racist, people opposed Obama because they were racist, and Hillary lost because people are sexist. None of any those things are true.

Ron

What you don't address is the fact that criminals don't obey laws. Do you really think that person who wants to kill others will have second thoughts about doing so because it is against the law to have the gun?

Carl Elfstrom

Who's to say that if we didn't pray life wouldn't be a lot worse than it is now. Just in case, I'll bank on prayer(and spell casting). I've also found it best to hope for the best but expect the worst (so I won't be overly disappointed when things don't go my way), and accept life on its own terms, since it won't change course to suit me. I've been living on borrowed time far too many years to worry about getting gunned down tomorrow, and can only be grateful for all this extra time I've had. Let's try not to forget that there are also a lot of good people who are democrats. It could be, as I've always assumed, that us republicans, on average, have higher I.Q.s, so we don't commit nearly as many stupid crimes as democrats, and don't get caught nearly as often.

Carl Elfstrom

I have that same saying on the wall in front of me across the room where I sit in my favorite chair throughout most of every day. To the left of that another one reads "Believe in yourself you are stronger than you think." To the left of that one another one reads "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we shall become." Next to that one reads " Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall." Next comes "Resolve not to be overcome by evil but to combat evil with good." Below all that I top it off with the Desiderata. I sometimes actually read all that stuff, and even think about it. And that's just one wall ! There's a lot more on my other walls, such as quotes by Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, and even one by Michael Jordan that states "You must expect great things of yourself before you can dothem.Above that is a sixteen by twenty of Joe DiMaggio called The Swing Shot. Now a word about sympathetic ( folk) magic. There is great power in words, and you don't have to call on a diety to evoke it. You just need to say the right words in the right way.

John Owens

Which is why we should begin teaching them at a very early age what not to touch. And of course, keep an eye on them. Just this morning, I heard about one child who shot another in Birmingham. Unintentionally, of course, but the child is in critical condition. Still, more children strangle on small objects than are hurt by firearms. I know, you'll want me to cite references, but we all know that is so. Probably more drown also. Not to belittle that. Far from it. Even one is too many, but-- I say, don't use someone else's irresponsibility to curtail my rights.

Dan Atatakai

John - What rights are you losing? Is it the right to not have to wait the waiting period? The right to have proficiency training?

Nobody is wanting to take your firearms or other weapons away. The government and many others who have seen the hostility of firearms and the damage they can cause, to have proper training and are actually capable and responsible as well as liable for anything dealing with their weapons.

John Owens

I think you are mistaken, Dan. Maybe YOU don't want to take my firearms, but people who DO want to take them will use people like you to make THEM appear more reasonable and rational. There is an end game for all this, and it is not really to prevent murders. It is to give government the power to do as it wishes without repercussion or reprisal. I know that sounds paranoid, but that does not mean I am wrong. That was why we were given the 2nd amendment in the first place.

If people really care about crime and murder, they should return to the core values we had as a society before I was born. When I was in school, everybody carried a pocket knife, and if we were going hunting before school or after school, there would be a shotgun or high-powered rifle in our vehicle. No one was cut, stabbed, or shot in the WHOLE county where I went to High School.

Dan Atatakai

John - Have you any actual empirical evidence which shows your accuracy in your claim of governmental imposition?

The last I checked the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment is not about ownership but having possession of firearms in a "well-regulated militia." Remember that, during the time of the writing, there were only muskets and not semi-automatic firearms, and the everyday "Joe Citizen" belonged to a local militia as there were no regional police agencies, where everyone was protecting the young United States of America. Obviously, NOW, there are numerous police agencies, from city to county to state, as well as the U.S. military. The need for all citizens to be part of that militia is no longer required.

I look forward to seeing your evidence that it is a government conspiracy to take away your firearms. After all, the registration and licensing of vehicles, which is pretty much parallel to the issue of firearms, requires just about everything one would need for firearms registration. Nobody has lost their vehicles OR firearms because of the government absconding with them.

James

Responsibility is key in having / owning anything. Even a mind or a tongue. Killing has happened for a loooooong time in human history. Weapon of choice is all that counts. Maybe we should ban open pit reservoirs, bays, wells & the like? If one was to commit mass murder. Drop ??? in there. Improper use of high powered sidearm are for egotistical ppl that want to have a name for themselves and publicly take others with them.

James

@ Dan,... I look forward to seeing your evidence that it is a government conspiracy to take away your firearms? A thorough read of the governments "eminent domain & seizure" laws will solve that debate. Gov can take anything they wish at any time they wish. One person at a time or entire groups. From Ruby Ridge to Waco (and 100's other situations similar). The man selling hot dogs at the game (see other thread on ULC). To the 5 ft of land in our front yard to widen the street. The city I live in passed a law that it is illegal to own, operate a xxx business w/in the city limits. Altho I'm grandfathers in "operations". It is illegal for me to do my job. as the rights were contracted out to a large company that has exclusive rights doing this work. Creatively done or blatantly take, Gov will take as they wish.

John Owens

Dan, if you believe your last statement to be true, then tell me, what would be the point of any of it? If the regulation doesn't restrict anyone's rights, of what use is the regulation?

Linda

Dan, a well regulated militia is one that is brought in to train regularly, being a force that could oppose the government if need be... not regulated to limit their force. That wouldn't make sense.

The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with being the local police, and the right to protect one's self and family against criminals is a given. ALL ten amendments were to give power to the people to balance the power given to the government.

The insight into forming these crucial balance of powers is what makes the constitution an amazing document and if we mess with it too much, capitalism will not work.

Paster Quinn

"NPR Radio in the US….. was a project started by the Rockefeller Institute, Naval Psychological Operations and RCA" I don't suppose you would have a source for that?

NPR evolved from the National Educational Radio Network in 1970. NERN evolved from the Association of College and University Broadcasting Stations, (renamed the National Association of Educational Broadcasters) Grants from Ford and W. K. Kellogg Foundation enabled the network to evolve.

Chuck

My source for that is my own family. We have a very large amount of military, military contractors, etc. since WW2. So no, you wont find an article saying NPR is a military psyop.... any more than you will find an article with all of the U.S.'s nuclear secrets.

However, heres a list of actual sponsors, many of which are either directly or indirectly connected to the military industrial complex, psychology/pharma, propaganda (media). ......btw, why do you think all of the wealthy family contributors (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc) are also pivotal in the world of behavioral psychology? Do a little digging on your own as to these foundations, and who/what they actually are.... start with the Ford Foundation

The sponsor lists, as provided by NPR, are full of high-profile, multi-national corporations and other powerful and influential entities. Following is a small sample from their 2008 Annual Reports and Donor Lists (edited list, does not include all sponsors):

$1 million+ ◾General Motors Corporation ◾Northwestern Mutual Foundation ◾Progressive Casualty Insurance Company ◾Prudential Financial ◾State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

$500,000 – $999,999 ◾Citibank ◾Constellation Energy Group ◾LendingTree ◾Lionsgate Entertainment Corporation ◾Vanguard Group

$250,000 – $499,999 ◾Alliance for Climate Protection ◾CITGO Petroleum Corporation ◾Fox Searchlight Pictures ◾Overture Films ◾PBS ◾Universal Pictures ◾Warner Home Video

100,000 – $249,999 ◾20th Century Fox Home Entertainment ◾ABC ◾Caterpillar ◾FX Networks ◾HBO ◾HoMedics ◾Hyatt Corporation ◾Intel Corporation ◾Johnson Controls ◾Lindamood-Bell Learning Systems ◾MGM ◾Paramount Home Entertainment ◾Paramount Pictures ◾Philips Healthcare ◾U.S. Bank

In the same document in the FY08 INSTITUTIONAL & CORPORATE FOUNDATIONS & PUBLIC SECTOR GRANTS section, we find (edited list, does not include all sponsors):

$500,000 – $1 million ◾American Jewish World Service ◾The Annenberg Foundation ◾Corporation for Public Broadcasting*

$250,000 – $499,999 ◾Carnegie Corporation of New York* ◾Department of Education ◾Skoll Foundation ◾Alfred P. Sloan Foundation*

$100,000 – $249,000 ◾Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation ◾The Ford Foundation ◾NASDAQ Educational Foundation ◾Public Telecommunications ◾Facilities Program – U.S. Department of Commerce

John Owens

Deflecting

Paster Quinn

Chuck, while that is a nice cut and paste, and accurate, it does nothing to back up your claim that "The goal was to get the American public to start thinking in a socialist manner" nor does it provide credence for this claim: "Rockefellers are closet Communists".

John Owens

SOMEBODY started brainwashing our people, and I know a lot of it was done in school.

James

Corporate & Government brainwash each other ($$$). Who in turn brainwash the teachers, who brainwash the students, who grow up & brainwash their kids to believe Gov & Corp know what is best for them. Who in-turn brainwash their off spring. A catch 22 of a sick world of ppl we have 2day.

Chuck

Yes Parson......the wealthy US families are not only commies, they funded the Communist Revolution. They also funded the Nazis. The goal of each was to create socialist super unions. Communism succeeded by creating the Soviet Union, but Hitler failed to create a European Union after he defected from his "mission", and started doing his own thing. The European Union was founded later by Liberals in Europe.

The ultimate goal is to create a world of socialist "unions" by destroying nations and merging them. So far they have the Soviet Union (even though we don't call it that anymore), European Union and African Union.

They still plan to create a Pacific Union, Middle Eastern Union, North American Union and South American Union. Obama tried to create the Pacific Union through creating the TPP (trans pacific partnership). Luckily, Trump crushed it when he was elected. George Bush (also a closet Commie) tried to get the North American Union rolling by creating NAFTA & GATT.

You see, theres a reason these Commies want America disarmed. So that when they try to force the North American Union on us, we wont be able to fight back.

So there ya have it..... "Socialism" is just evil masking itself as warm fluffy utopia. In reality, it is world dictatorship. And what irony it all is.... the richest men in the world who became rich through Capitalism want to take over the world using "socialism", and blaming Capitalism....biggest gag/hoax of ALL time!

Heres a source for ya

http://transmissionsmedia.com/wall-street-funded-both-communists-and-nazis/

Professor Antony Sutton dedicated his life to exposing all this.

Chuck

A simple Google search (ironically) would give you all kinds of info on Google censorship. Took me 1 second.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=iKgVWp-QHse7jwSOsKzwCA&q=google+censors+results&oq=google+censors+results&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.4209.9657.0.9976.22.16.0.6.6.0.96.1292.16.16.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.22.1400...0i131i67k1j0i131k1j35i39k1j0i67k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i20i264k1.0.3fu4WBq81gA

Linda

Thank you Chuck.

Surprisingly your Google search supported your claims about Google! It had several current website articles, with Wikipedia being much less critical, but News Week specifically commented they seem to be censoring views attributed to the right. Both articles said Google had policies to censor pro Nazi, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and others we can all agree. However, other censorship policies listed tend to target right wing views.

I don't know if brainwashing is the term to use for policies they choose for their private company, especially when many other major informative agencies are calling them on it. Even the Google search itself had numerous articles listed. Then again, people on Yahoo were complaining their posts about articles on Trump were being deleted. That only made those people support Trump more and their censorship / "brainwashing" obviously didn't work on that.