Why did not anyone get that Ron Paul was a REPUBLICAN?

Some Replublican candidates may have reasonable thoughts occaisonally—pro-choice (which really is pro-privacy), anti-war (because it’s going badly)—but in the end they remain REPUBLICAN.

Response to Tyler, who said:

“ALL westernized countries that exercise different forms of gun control have LOWER crime rates than the US.”

Not true, Tyler. You have oversimplified the issue. Some countries like Switzerland are very heavily armed, and have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. In Switzerland, all adult males are required by law, as part of the Swiss Militia, to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes.

On the other hand, some countries that have gun control, such as Japan, also have low crime rates relative to the USA. Clearly, the cause of high or low crime rates is a very complex question. But you cannot oversimplify by saying that guns cause crime, or that not having guns causes crime.

In England and Australia, which have recently made it almost impossible to own guns, the rate of violent crime using guns has skyrocketed. Why? Because the perpetrators now know they will not meet any serious resistance.

This is a very complex issue. I suggest reading the works of John Lott to get a better grasp of the issue of guns and crime rates.

Reply to Douglas Chalmers, who said:

“There have been Israeli settlers who have attacked Arab Moslem mosques with automatic weapons as well. They killed far more Arabs than vice versa. Gt ALl the facts, thanks, before you start trumpeting, please.”

My point in discussing Israeli schools was to show that schools can be made safer, even in very violent areas, if guns are available for self defense. I think this point remains valid.

Regarding the Palestinians, I am very sympathetic to their plight. I doubt the Israeli settlers who have attacked mosques with automatic weapons got them from their local schools, though I suppose it might be possible. Can you documentthe source of the weapons that were used?

I suspect Palestinians are, to a large extent, disarmed, though of course many of them get their hands on weapons through the underground.

My point was not to celebrate the Israelis as against the Palestinians, but simply to make a point about the use of weapons in self-defense.

Err..huh? Sorry, if there was humor or some kind of point that post, please explain it for us.

Did that make sense to anyone else?

#95566 by Frank on 8/16 at 6:38 pm: “....On planes is one of those times when I am willing to give up my right to carry to be sure that nobody else can carry either...”

Sounds like a de facto version of the abortion debate, duh. Good luck with your “baby”, Frank, you’re going to need it!

#Quote Frank: “Thankfully, nutjobs or temporarily-disturbed people on flights are generally in the minority...... I have a CCW permit myself...”

So are pregnant mothers, Frank. Don’t worry, you’ll make it safely to the hospital and even “carrry” full term, ha ha! Do try to get a first aid permit for a change, though.

I am very much a supporter of the second amendment, private gun ownership, and of concealed carry permits for law-abiding citizens. I have a CCW permit myself.  I am 100% opposed to allowing passengers to carry-on guns on commercial flights, however.

Why? Airplanes in flight are very unique environment. All passengers on board are essentially captives with no means of escape from the time the flight takes off until it lands. The environment of flight can cause high anxiety, hysteria, and borderline psychotic behavior in otherwise well-adjusted people.  Basically, some people just go nuts on planes due to fear of flying, claustrophobia, whatever. 

Thankfully, nutjobs or temporarily-disturbed people on flights are generally in the minority, so they are usually easily restrained by the superior numbers of ‘sane’ passengers and crew before they can do much harm.  But a gun in the hands of a disturbed person would negate the advantage of numbers that the sane passengers have, and could create a situation that threatens hundreds of lives. You can’t count on other passengers also being armed, and even if some were, you certainly don’t want these disturbances on flights escalating into gun stand-offs or shootouts between amateurs.

On planes is one of those times when I am willing to give up my right to carry to be sure that nobody else can carry either, because it is a well-screened environment where compliance is mostly guaranteed.  Unlike gun restricted cities where the outlaws may still carry guns and the law-abiders are unarmed, at least on an airliner the playing field is leveled, and there is safety in numbers among the unarmed, sane passengers.

I do approve of well-trained flight deck crews being armed to prevent the cockpit from being compromised.

#95530 by Frank on 8/16 at 2:59 pm: “...The simple truth which is too taboo for public discussion is the majority of US violent crime is attributable to blacks, aka African Americans.  Take blacks out of the equation, and we would have a very low crime rate, even with our high gun ownership....”

Isn’t this also a matter of poverty and social repression? The errors of a white prejudiced society’s history can’t all be merely wished away overnight by words on a piece of paper. Simple Truth, indeed!

ALL westernized countries that exercise different forms of gun control have LOWER crime rates than the US.

That’s not the point. The point is that crimes rates typically go UP in these counties when they institute strict gun control. It happened in the UK and Australia. In England, strict gun control was enacted in 1997 including a handgun ban.  In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July 2002, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

The simple truth which is too taboo for public discussion is the majority of US violent crime is attributable to blacks, aka African Americans.  Take blacks out of the equation, and we would have a very low crime rate, even with our high gun ownership.  Blacks are 13% of the US population and yet commit more than 50% of muggings and murders in the US, according to the DOJ and FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

ALL westernized countries that exercise different forms of gun control have LOWER crime rates than the US.

That’s not the point. The point is that crimes rates typically go UP in these counties when they institute strict gun control. It happened in the UK and Australia. In England, strict gun control was enacted in 1997 including a handgun ban.  In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July 2002, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

The simple truth which is too tabo for public discussion is the majority of US violent crime is attributable to blacks, aka African Americans.  Take blacks out of the equation, and we would have a very low crime rate, even with our high gun owbership.  Blacks are 13% of the US population and yet commit more than 50% of muggings and murders in the US, according to the DOJ and FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Re:#95167 by driving bear on 8/15 at 11:57 am
(2 comments total)

Ron Paul is right on 2nd admement and on abortion
Face facts 85 % of americans are pro-life
in 2006 pew research center poll revealed that 15 % of americans support a ban on abortion , 15% support the current abortion rights and 70 % think abortion should be legal only in cases of risk to life of the mother ,or in cases of rape/incest.
Also more guns means less crime.
----------------------------------------------------
Driving bear,

Where did you get those statistics? The Pew Research Center?  I looked and didn’t find anything like that at all, at least not using their search tool.  I did find this though:

“Although the public sees a strong link between Christianity and the country’s national identity, a July 2006 poll indicates that most Americans think citizen preferences should outweigh the Bible as an influence on American law. When asked which should have more influence over the laws of the country - the Bible or the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the Bible - most Americans (63%) say the people’s will should have more sway. A significant minority (32%), however, believes the Bible should be more important.” (Could you put a link to that poll?)

Also, more guns means less crime.....???  Well, that would be a hard one to sell in the rough inner city communities. Whereas most rural people do not feel guns cause more violence.

Ron Paul is right on 2nd admement and on abortion
Face facts 85 % of americans are pro-life
in 2006 pew research center poll revealed that 15 % of americans support a ban on abortion , 15% support the current abortion rights and 70 % think abortion should be legal only in cases of risk to life of the mother ,or in cases of rape/incest.
Also more guns means less crime.

And how many of you dirty little inbred mouth breathers missed his most powerful statement?

“We should revalue(sic) this idea the misinterpretation of the constitution that anybody who is just born here is a natural citizen that needs to be revisited.”

I realize that you don’t get all that much ‘histry larnin’ while jackin off to Larry the Cable Guy so I’ll educate your inbred asses about the significance, sorry, the importance, sorry again, (it IS difficult to educate about ideas WITHOUT using multisyllabic words) the ‘bad’ in that ‘thankin.’

“...that anybody who is just born here is a natural citizen....” The constitution does not equivocate upon this issue and you inbreeds should thank your Clairol Jeebus it doesn’t or you’d be out of this country in an instant.  If you are born here you are a citizen of this country.  Period.

But this second rate Gantry says this should not be the case.  That means, my little inbred, toothless wonders, that there will be some OTHER standard by which citizenship will be determined.  Stop the hand action up your little sister for a minute and twist your freakish faces into a thoughtful look and try, just try, to pull that idea into the twisted flesh of your inbred brains: there will be a new way to determine if you are a citizen of this country and it will not matter if you were born here or not.

Now, I realize I’ve already overtaxed your simple minds by challenging them to think about something else besides family boffing so I’ll cut to the chase:  The determination of citizenship by means other than birth has been tried elsewhere at other times.  For the most recent example have someone literate read to you about Nazism.  You know, those kooky guys with the kinky uniforms you love to dress your mother in before you make yourself another brother/son.

Ron Paul is just another Nazi talking of “strict interpretation” of the constitution, meaning HIS interpretation, meaning:

Women have no rights over their bodies.
Anyone and Everyone should have the right to kill anyone they feel is a threat to them or their country at any time.
Universal education is useless, if you want to teach your brother/son that Jeebus made 9-11 happen because there are gays in the military, why that’s your right and you should be able to just shoot any ‘kollege edumacated librel jewish smartass’ who disagrees with y’all.
Citizenship is not a right of birth, but of some form of not yet spoken merit.  And you can just bet that will mean: no gays, no smart mouth women, no one with ANY dissenting views, no blacks, no browns, no jews, no muslims, no one, in fact, who does not sound, talk and behave EXACTLY like him, etc, etc, etc.

This nasty little turd is so transparently and hatefully bigoted it is no wonder only inbred Jeds follow him. 

But of course we’ll hear from the inbreds who went to ‘skewl’ long enough to ‘larn’ how to ‘deebate’ about how ‘God’ is in Paul and anyone who doesn’t agree is just ‘evil.’ Spare me your heoric efforts at spelling and calling me ‘arrogant.’ The real arrogance is this privileged white abomination deciding that HE should be the judge, jury, and arbitrator of EVERY woman’s rights. 

So fire away, inbreeds.  At least it’ll keep you from banging your mammas and making more brother/son freaks to follow your favorite fascists.

Response to “Outraged”:

“Your logic is seriously flawed. First of all, VT nor Columbine is the “Warsaw Ghetto”.”

Actually, it IS analogous to the Warsaw Ghetto, if you think in terms of broad principles. That is, legally disarmed citizens are easy targets, whether the guy wielding the murder weapon is just a street thug, or the type of thug who wears a shiny government badge.

You also ask rhetorically whose hands constitute the “right hands” for having a gun. In a Columbine or VT situation, the answer is: anyone who can use the weapon to stop the killing. The creep at VT was able to carry on with his slaughter for hours until he finally took his own life. A single weapon in the hands of any student or instructor would have saved all those lives.

You also said:

“It takes a lot more than merely being a good shot or knowing how to “handle” a gun, to be qualified.  It’s a mindset and perspective of humanity, which makes a “good” gun owner different from someone who owns/has a gun.”

Well, I think you described the VT and Columbine situations perfectly. The ONLY person who had a weapon was the person who didn’t have a good “mindset and perspective of humanity.” Everyone else was disarmed.

Now, let’s say, hypothetically, that one person in the rooms where all those people were butchered had access to a single weapon. Let’s say that person hadn’t even had gun safety training. I submit that, even in this situation, the victims would have been able to figure out how to use the weapon and take down the criminal.

Part II

So, back in those days, passengers traveling with firearms had certain requirements, as determined by the airline, in compliance with federal regulations. The rifles/guns/whatever, had to be unloaded and locked in an approved container, (bullets carried or stored in a separate container) and it had to be transported in the belly of the aircraft with the other cargo. Period. No exceptions for regular folks.

For federal and some other law enforcement personnel, there were exceptions, but these too, were strictly monitored. FBI, DEA, and ATF were some of the regular gun-toters back then, who could indeed carry their weapons on board, but only after completing all of the routine bureaucratic protocols. That involved the paperwork, which noted their ID, affiliation, seat number, physical introduction to the crew, etc. Heaven forbid there should be more than one of them on the same flight, because then they had to be introduced to EACH OTHER. THESE are the precautions that are necessary when an operation involves putting people in a closed environment in the middle of the sky, when someone has a weapon.
And, guess what? It somehow just seemed to work. I have to say that, because in the years between 1975, and 2001, (to the best of my knowledge) there was never a US airliner highjacked on US soil, by any group of political militants, for any reason.

This has occurred in other places, and we all remember the terror attacks on Pan Am, as well as the TWA flight that disintegrated over Lockerbie, but here in the U.S., we did not experience that particular sort of sabotage that has been practiced in other areas of the globe, as a tactic of political resistance or opposition. (generally these highjackings have been an attempt to negotiate for something)

Still, this is not something that we have been plagued with in the history of our own commercial transportation system, and the addition of firearms to the mix, isn’t going to provide any enhanced “security” but it will increase the dangers of such, just as we noted with the execution of a passenger, (by a Federal Air Marshall) at the Miami airport two years ago.

Last but not least, lets think “practically” about the suggestion that Fixer has, about the ability of pilots to “shoot and fly” at the same time. Talk about a TV version. We’ve got a commercial airliner, say a 767 with an ass in every seat, (which is the goal of EVERY commercial airline operation) and that means approximately 200 folks crammed very densely into a very small space, from which they cannot move of run easily. And, Mr. Fixer would have us believe that the two people in the cockpit can successfully and simultaneously pilot the aircraft, talk to air traffic, (the feds) talk to their own operations people, and perform swat operations in a marksmanship-sniper type performance that will pick off the individual trouble makers on the flight, and not cause any damage to anything else. And, if the bullets hit a few of the windows, or maybe one of those engines that happens to be less than 12 inches away from most of those windows, which also happens to be full of fuel, then….no problem. Just hold onto your hats folks, we’ll get her down.

Please. What drugs are these than allow you such fantasy like imagination?

You need not apply for work in the industry. It’s just not ready for the shoot-em up cowboy operation. So, we’ll continue to keep guns off of airplanes.

As for sneaking up on cockpit crews, I’ve done it dozens of times. (not intentionally, they just weren’t paying attention) That door is indeed open during boarding, as well as deplaning, and even while it’s locked, more than a few crew members are likely to have keys. One fits all doors. And, for the average sized cockpit crew member, (harnessed into their little bucket seats) it’s more than a notion to just spring right out of that sucker, and grab you’re gun. (especially for those older dudes with their widening girths).

Part I
#94590 by Fixer on 8/13 at 11:43 am-

• The TSA administrates the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program that trains, certifies and equips pilots to fly armed aboard commercial aircraft. FFDO pilots are, in effect, federal officers when they are flying armed. Pilots are issued FFDO credentials and are required to carry only the pistols issued by TSA.

- TSA does not regulate airline operations. FAA does, and will not alter its regulations to allow airlines to arm flight crews.

These are two of a list of “facts” provider by Fixer, regarding as he calls it, “the whole “weapons on airplanes” thing. If these “facts” seem confusing, and even contradictory or oxymoronic, it’s because they are. (not saying they aren’t true, but only pointing out how bureaucratically stupid these facts are).

We’ve got this TSA, who supposedly guards the skies and the traveling public from the dangers of terrorists, and it is these people who administer the alleged Flight Deck Training program, which allegedly trains PILOTS to fly armed on commercial airlines, in order to provide this protection. (I would question the “factuality” of whether these are indeed pilots as in Airmen designated as such by an FAA issued license, but we’ll leave that as”academic” for the moment).

Yet the REAL “pilots” who are employed by commercial airline, and are flying the aircraft that belongs to the commercial airline, are regulated by the FAA, so THEY aren’t allowed to have them. But presumably, the TSA dude is sitting less than 3 feet away from them, holding the guns, to fight off any terrorists. So, for anyone that might be confused, it’s understandable.

So, here’s a bit of a history that might explain how it became so complicated. First, the TSA is another bureaucratic invention that emerged as another prop in waging the “war on terror” campaign. Like so many of our other New Century institutions, it simply didn’t exist before the events of 9-11.

Prior to that, the only federal agencies governing or regulating the security or any other operations of the commercial airline industry was the Dept. of Transportation, of which the FAA was included, although I don’t know how that actually connected in the structure on paper. And, this “regulation” has been historically “loose” to put it mildly. Because, as Nick suggested in an earlier post, the airlines have for the most part, been tasked with the responsibilities for the overall security of their individual operations.

“So, for example, the airlines could decide to hire armed security guards to fly randomly and incognito.  They could arm them with training and weapons that make them more effective than any hijackers but would not pose a major risk to passengers.”..

While he suggests this as some new idea by from Ron Paul, it’s not. This is the way it’s been for 30 years, minus the “private security guards”. Because, that’s the way they (the airlines) wanted it. They preferred as little interference from the feds as possible. And, that’s the way it was…until 9-11.

This job has instead been performed by Federal Air Marshals, employed by the FAA and/or DOT. And, I should stress that it was “occasional”. Those agencies hired very few of these patrollers of the airways, (at least from the seats of commercial airliners) and I always wondered why they bothered, or what would ever even happen, that would require the need for armed force on board.

The crews ARE in fact equipped to handle standard emergencies, including unruly or belligerent passengers, but none of that has ever required a firearm, because the passengers and crews themselves are prevented from carrying weapons on board. Very obvious fundamental reasoning here…NOBODY has weapons, so NOBODY needs them. And, if ANYBODY has them, the chance of an accident automatically increases. (that’s simple logic, and it always troubles me that so many folks fail to get that.)

To be continued….

#94942 by Paolo on 8/14

Quote: “Don’t you think that even a single weapon in the right hands could have been used to shoot the monsters who methodically mowed down innocent kids, methodically reloaded, then mowed down some more?

That a few more firearms WOULD NOT have helped the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?” endquote

Paolo:
Your logic is seriously flawed. First of all, VT nor Columbine is the “Warsaw Ghetto”.  Secondly, guns “in the right hands” is an abnomaly.  Sure, “IN THE RIGHT HANDS”, but Paolo, who would that be? You...?  Some idiot parent who “feels” fully “qualified”, c’mon.  Haven’t you ever seen an IDIOT toting a gun.  I have!  It takes a lot more than merely being a good shot or knowing how to “handle” a gun, to be qualified.  It’s a mindset and perspective of humanity, which makes a “good” gun owner different from someone who owns/has a gun.

#94942 by Paolo on 8/14 at 6:28 pm: “...Why don’t you ask the Israelis, who have a full cache of arms at all schools, for obvious reasons. Guess what? No firefights have broken out. That really should not surprise you....”

Garbage, Paolo. There have been Israeli settlers who have attacked Arab Moslem mosques with automatic weapons as well. They killed far more Arabs than vice versa. Gt ALl the facts, thanks, before you start trumpeting, please.

Ardee asked:

“Do you suggest that guns in Columbine high school would have been a solution to that tragedy? Or at VT?”

Don’t take my word for it, Ardee. Why don’t you ask the Israelis, who have a full cache of arms at all schools, for obvious reasons. Guess what? No firefights have broken out. That really should not surprise you.

And of course, Palestinian terrorists have not been attacking Israeli schools, for the very reason that the staff there has the ability to fight back.

Maybe you should ask an old-timer who went to New York public schools prior to the mid-1960’s, when after-school shooting clubs were common place. It was not uncommon to have a teenager bring his .22 to school, check it at the front office, and then go to target practice after school.

Again, no firefights broke out. And no Columbine-style massacres in New York City schools in those days.

Are you seriously saying that a few students or teachers having ready access to firearms WOULD NOT have helped at Columbine or VT? Don’t you think that even a single weapon in the right hands could have been used to shoot the monsters who methodically mowed down innocent kids, methodically reloaded, then mowed down some more?

That a few more firearms WOULD NOT have helped the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?

The point history teaches us, over and over again, is that disarmed citizens are easy victims. Ron Paul understands this.

Now, rather than hurl insults, why not just state your case? I think we can have a civilized discussion, even if we disagree. I’m capable of that. Are you?

@brainstorm:

“What on earth sort of society do you envision, the one you learned while watching cowboy movies? The one in which children are not collateral damage when fools like you start shooting?”

Would you prefer to be a fish in a barrel or an armed duck in a “shooting gallery”? I’d go with being the armed duck.

We already tried the fish in the barrel approach, see what it got us?

How about we allow people to defend themselves and others?

It’s amazing and unfortunate how scared people can be so of common sense.

@ardee
“What I fear are morons like you without the emotional maturity to understand that guns kill indiscriminately.”

Yeah, sure, whatever you say. It was silly of me to question the wisdom and ability of our Federal Government. Funny how when honest debate can’t support an argument, name calling ensues from the losing side of the argument.

Enjoy, your police state, ardee.

ardee, you are the one lacking deductive logic.

If one want to commit mass killing, which venue is best:

- a place where by law all honest law-abiding persons are DISARMED (like a school or post office)

- a place brimming with armed people.

Over and over, it is proven that gun control laws do nothing to disarm criminals, instead they enable them to commit more crimes by disarming honest, law abiding people.

Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Therefore they end up being the only ones armed. (and the police, which are either inefficient, incompetent or plain criminal, see http://www.theagitator.com/archives/cat_paramilitary_p olice_raids.php)

Just think and apply logic, it is very simple.

Gun control creates crime. An armed society is a polite society.

If you think gun control works so well and will protect you, Please move to some blighted neighbourhood and place big signs in your fron lawn saying “this is a gun and drug free zone”. Let’ see how long before you are burglarized.

BTW, yes, guns allowed on school grounds would reduce the kind of incidents you listed, see this for example http://timlambert.org/guns/appalachian/nd/tackle/gun/2 22.html, http://www.newswithviews.com/Johnston/patrick4.htm

-----------------------------
#94788 by ardee on 8/14 at 4:59 am
(458 comments total)
Columbine
9-11 (all four planes)
Virginia Tech
Springfield, Oregon (Kip Kinkel)
Ron Paul is right!

Paolo I have never been a fan of your deductive loguic , or rather the lack thereof. Your absurd little list is another example of why I believe you to be a precocious high school student showing offtfor the adults.

Do you suggest that guns in Columbine high school would have been a solution to that tragedy? Or at VT? What on earth sort of society do you envision, the one you learned while watching cowboy movies? The one in which children are not collateral damage when fools like you start shooting?

Ron Paul is certainly right, far, far right.

94829 by RickinSF on 8/14 at 8:12 am: “...Ernest Gann mentioned, briefly, in “Fate is the Hunter,” that as an airline pilot he was supposed to carry a revolver because he carried the US Mail. This would be the years just before and after WWII...”

Yes, I was once offered a job by a US mining company in a SW Pacific location which was somewhat primitive. Only I was told that I was expected to carry a handgun at all times.

I have learned that people respond better to more positive incentives and that fear engenders all kinds of problems. I didn’t take up the job because I could see that the company had more or less already engendered a climate of fear and disrespect on site.

That was dangerous enough but that is also what we now have in our cities and so-called civilization. Feeling secure doesn’t come from pointing guns at each other. What is worse now is that police think they can get respect from threatening citizens.

Abolish the Dept. Of Education! One only needs Federal Leadership in that area if they believe that their vision of education should trump over all others and, that the American people are too stupid to determine what a good education is. After all, those with higher degrees are little more that credentialed cogs in the bureaucratic maze.
Whether it’s Bush’s Neo-Cons with “No Child Left Behind”, or the Democrats getting in there with the idea that “that’s our law now!” We know that as long as there is a Dept. of Ed., we’ll have some new boss every few years to tell us what to do. Oh and, don’t forget that Corporations will have their say whether Republicans, or Democrats are in power.

Ron Paul is right to support the Department of Educations demise.

Ernest Gann mentioned, briefly, in “Fate is the Hunter,” that as an airline pilot he was supposed to carry a revolver because he carried the US Mail. This would be the years just before and after WWII.

If per capita private gun ownership meant increased security, then the population in the United States would be the most secure in the world. But we are not.

There is something very wrong with our society - it is the “Me, Me, Me” mantra that places individual rights above collective security and collective rights. They seem to “get” this in Canada, Britain, and many other first world nations, while we remain in denial as long as we “get ours”.

Columbine

9-11 (all four planes)

Virginia Tech

Springfield, Oregon (Kip Kinkel)

Ron Paul is right!

Paolo I have never been a fan of your deductive loguic , or rather the lack thereof. Your absurd little list is another example of why I believe you to be a precocious high school student showing offtfor the adults.

Do you suggest that guns in Columbine high school would have been a solution to that tragedy? Or at VT? What on earth sort of society do you envision, the one you learned while watching cowboy movies? The one in which children are not collateral damage when fools like you start shooting?

Ron Paul is certainly right, far, far right.

#94712 by Ray Harmon on 8/13 at 7:13 pm

Grow the fuck up or do not respond to my posts.

I have absolutely no fear of guns having already explained that I own many of them. What I fear are morons like you without the emotional maturity to understand that guns kill indiscriminately. That people like you think weapons are like video games, no one really gets hurt you simply reset and begin again.

Gun ownership is not a right, despite the misinterpretation of the right wing. It is a serious priviledge and comes with a sense of responsibility undemonstrated by any of you freaks. Until you have stood over an enemy you are responsible for murdering dont fucking talk to me about your right to own and carry weapons. You havent one single freaking clue.

#94754 by cyrena on 8/13 at 11:27 pm: “...#94749 by ~B~ on 8/13 at 9:56 pm • This is what America has become. A nation where false claims are not challenged......”
#Icyrena: “...t’s like having to learn another language, only maybe even more difficult, because it means “unlearning” the stuff that we’ve been fed for 7 long years. ...........for those in greater denial, it’s a difficult task, and becomes even more difficult as socio-economic conditions deteriorate. ........they engage in avoidance, and just don’t allow themselves any awareness of our reality, because it’s all just too much for them to deal with. .......Then there are others that grab at straws, or jump on anything that seems to be what they want to hear...”

The “R-COMPLEX”: down-shifting and human stupidity........!!! How to achieve emotional control, etc:-

Quote: “ “Emotions involve the human brain at all levels. To oversimplify, the oldest brain does the body resetting, the middle brain gives the orders, and the new brain provides complex and detailed analysis of the situation and gives permission for or inhibits the emotion. But the new brain, the cerebral cortex and its associated pathways, does not always win. It can be temporarily shunted out of the decision making as older, simpler circuits take over. A suitable term for this is ‘downshifting.’.....

When we downshift, full use of our new brains is suspended and more control is given to our lower brains. One can readily see how this can become problematic. When we become upset or are in a negative emotional state, we turn over the controls to our lower brains and the consequence is something we’ve all experienced many times: we can’t think clearly, our thinking becomes muddled, as if someone has thrown a bucket of mud on the windshield of our car.

Under any kind of threat we tend to downshift. The reason for this should be clear: in many serious, threatening situations we are required to take immediate action. We confront a wild bear and we make an instantaneous decision to run. The lower brains work well in these kinds of situations; they were designed to make quick decisions. So downshifting is an automatic protection mechanism. It enables us to shift to more primitive and dependable response patterns.

Unfortunately, downshifting has an obvious downside. When we downshift, we lose full use of our new brain, the neo-cortex. Our ability to think straight seems to vanish. The problem is that we continue to downshift even when it is not necessary or even beneficial to do so....... By learning how to counteract or prevent ourselves from downshifting, we can greatly increase our personal power and our control over our emotions. An effective method for doing exactly this is the freeze-frame technique discussed below....” http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl12.shtml

#94749 by ~B~ on 8/13 at 9:56 pm

• Surely it must be time for some realistic approaches to our problems. Guns do not protect rights, rich people do not solve social issues, and free markets do not foster healthy democracies. These are the truths of the debate. They are never spoken

• This is what America has become. A nation where false claims are not challenged, in fact most often the are repeated - continuously. What better way to make something seem true? Have we lost our collective minds? Can we not see what happens in front of our own eyes?

~B~

Thanks so much for the great words. I’m going to see that it is circulated, even though I’ve admittedly been trying to make these same points myself, for a while now. But, so many are still caught up in the false claims that have been so intentionally repeated, and for so very long now, that it seems they can’t make the switch. It troubles me greatly, to see my so many (my own loved ones included) fall victim to it.

It’s like having to learn another language, only maybe even more difficult, because it means “unlearning” the stuff that we’ve been fed for 7 long years. It might be easier for someone who’s been in a coma for the past 6 years, and hasn’t had the alternative reality mass media fed to them for all of that time. Then it would just be a matter of catching them up to speed.

But, for those in greater denial, it’s a difficult task, and becomes even more difficult as socio-economic conditions deteriorate. It’s really got the senior and nearing senior folks in quite a psychological dilemma. So they engage in avoidance, and just don’t allow themselves any awareness of our reality, because it’s all just too much for them to deal with.

Then there are others that grab at straws, or jump on anything that seems to be what they want to hear, (like Ron Paul) because in an fairytale or movieland world, this might be possible. It always sounds good on paper, and in theory, but simply doesn’t have a connection to the realities of today.

Yet, our history has proven this, over and over again. And you’re right. We ignore it at our peril. We should see that we already HAVE.

Still, since at least some of us do realize that we’ve lost our collective minds, I’m hoping we can still help others get theirs back.

Why are so many commenters clinging to gun rights while they have sat back and allowed nearly the entire remainder of the Bill of Rights to be abolished? Weren’t the guns to protect your rights? I guess that argument for gun rights is pretty moot.

Guns will do no good in the hands of a people who know not what to defend. You sit at home with a house full of guns and let the government run amok - as long as the cable isn’t damaged so you get your TV and internet?

This illustrates my point about Ron Paul, his writings lead me to the conclusion that he isn’t being realistic though I do appreciate his idealistic goals. Just as guns did nothing to protect our rights, his belief in morality and humans exercising such is similarly flawed. Both assume that individuals will make the proper decisions. Has not history herself borne out a different result? We ignore her at our peril.

Surely it must be time for some realistic approaches to our problems. Guns do not protect rights, rich people do not solve social issues, and free markets do not foster healthy democracies. These are the truths of the debate. They are never spoken. What do we hear? Guns are for protection of our families and rights. The government has no right to touch an individual’s personal property so that the wealthy will be able to spend the money they save on their favorite charities and this is to replace government “socialist” programs. Free markets are the basis of American Democracy.

This is what America has become. A nation where false claims are not challenged, in fact most often the are repeated - continuously. What better way to make something seem true? Have we lost our collective minds? Can we not see what happens in front of our own eyes?

B

http://b-political.blogspot.com/

So, I know I’m already beginning to sound like I was in the lead-up to the Coup of 2000, when well-intended wanna-be-on-the-bandwagon types were telling me that they were gonna vote for george bush, because they thought he was “sincere”. In reality, he appealed to the ignorant, by “talking at their level” in that fake cowboy accent. So the “boys in Lubbuck” could understand him, according to george.  Well, he was sincere all right. And, I’m sure Ron Paul is as well. That doesn’t relieve me not one little bit.
======================================================

Ron Paul is actually from Pennsylvania. He was in the Air Force during the Vietnam war and ended up stationed in Teas so he stayed there.

As for sincerity, his voting record is absolutely consistent. People that fell for Bush’s rhetoric probably deserve what they’re getting. Sadly the rest of us are just stuck with it.

As for the poor people living in tent cities? As long as we offer them a welfare state, they’ll keep sneaking in.

#94726 by 911truthdotorg on 8/13 at 8:14 pm

I can’t believe the choices we have to pick from.
So very sad.

If it’s anyone else but these two, I’m writing in Mickey Mouse.
========================

911truthdog,

You brought a out louder with the comment on Mickey, if only because famertx said the same thing about most of his neighbors in Texas. He specifically quoted a guy who said he would only vote republican, and that yes, if Mickey Mouse was the only republican on the ticket, he’d vote for him.

And, according to famertx, the guy was dead serious. I believe it, because I lived there myself for 17 years.

So, just keep that in mind. This is the same state that brought you Dick Bush, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzoles, and I could name other horrors. Also keep in mind that this ideal system, isn’t the least bit ideal, for the have-nots in that state. Matter of fact, they live 4th world existences, tent cities under the freeways, and abject poverty is rampant, because the system just doesn’t recognize those that are less fortunate.

So, I know I’m already beginning to sound like I was in the lead-up to the Coup of 2000, when well-intended wanna-be-on-the-bandwagon types were telling me that they were gonna vote for george bush, because they thought he was “sincere”. In reality, he appealed to the ignorant, by “talking at their level” in that fake cowboy accent. So the “boys in Lubbuck” could understand him, according to george.

Well, he was sincere all right. And, I’m sure Ron Paul is as well. That doesn’t relieve me not one little bit.

Besides, you’ve still got time. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.