Shameful and cruel... (Sandy Hook)

[guido tkp]

amphiaraus...

OH, STOP !!! you're making my head hurt with all these big words 'n idears 'n things...

but...if we actually did nothing (not that i'm callin' on the gubmint to do anything)...don't we run the risk of all this becoming even more of a ...contagion that further deflects the forward momentum of real truth

and i'm not sure if each of who can, in fact, think for ourselves can anymore fully act as a true shield against such insipidies...for if that were the case, this plague on all our houses would've died like a martian on the mainland a long time ago

no...the proof is in the pudding...and the pudding has quite gone over...

there must be something more we can do, w/o govt intervention, before the tide that turns drowns instead

[Amphiaraus]

...there must be something more we can do, w/o govt intervention, before the tide that turns drowns instead

*chuckles happily*

Here's a hint:
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

When he wrote this, Lincoln was not just praising America's democratic system of government, and offering thanks to the dead who aided the preservation of the Union, he was out to make a point: The Great Social Experiment called America is an ongoing, perpetual struggle... the greatest task imaginable, in fact. Consequently, like all great endeavors, there will be moments of conflict and crisis, and perhaps the loss of life too. As Lincoln was careful to point out, the issue wasn't necessarily one of freedom (as he understood enough of history, recent and classical, to know "freedom" waxes and wanes in response to necessity), but of preserving a social system wherein all people were considered equal. Not just in terms of social opportunity and legal standing, but in terms of deciding what happens next in their personal and interpersonal lives. Consequently his declaration that government is of the people, by the people, for the people. According to Lincoln, government is not an entity unto itself, nor should it ever be.

Therefore, to ask if it's possible that we can do something without government intervention is to ask about the logic of an oxymoron (and yeah, cracks about military intelligence still get me giggling). But if you're asking if there's anything we can do on a personal level to possibly stem the demagoguery that's become so widespread, I'd say yes, and let this post of mine stand as an example. Though only a few may read it (and even fewer consider it worthwhile reading), I've at least exercised my option to participate by setting the example I believe and feel is best.

Of course, Ms. Mod may disagree with me and delete this sucker before it sees the light of day (this message board, afterall, is a private concern provided to the public by an owner, and as such, the owner of this site reserves the right to arbitrarily change the rules of use at any time in addition to removing any messages that he does not wish associated with his personal site - but this is exactly why I choose to post here rather than on any other site - I bet Rush Limbaugh, for example, wouldn't care so much for my opinions and observations ) and cheerfully ban my account too. But chances are terrific that wouldn't prevent me from carrying on in a manner that I believe to be sound, correct and responsible, if not ethical and moral.

[Moderator]

If you've looked around, particularly in the Hot Topics threads, you'll have noticed that it's not just posts that are in tune with Steve's (or my) liberal mindedness that get posted. Discussions on both sides are encouraged with the hope that we can agree to disagree before things get too nasty. You haven't given me any reason to ban you yet.

[exzel]

If you've looked around, particularly in the Hot Topics threads, you'll have noticed that it's not just posts that are in tune with Steve's (or my) liberal mindedness that get posted. Discussions on both sides are encouraged with the hope that we can agree to disagree before things get too nasty. You haven't given me any reason to ban you yet.

I can attest to that! There probably isn’t anyone here more diametrically opposed to their liberal mindedness (oxymoron?? relax… just kidding ) than me. Well… anyone who has the guts to go up against Ms. Mod’s viewpoints on a regular basis anyway. But be forewarned, she is good, and can deliver a smack-down as good as I've ever seen. I’m sure I get her blood boiling at times, but I must tell you I’ve never had any post of mine edited or rejected. As long as you stay respectful, are open to discussion, and can present your viewpoints in a semi-coherent manner, I believe they hold the spirit of the First Amendment close to their hearts here... even though they don’t have to at SKMB.

[guido tkp]

wow...a-man, i am humbled...

when i was a mere lad...lo, those many eons ago (back in the dinosaur days)...that very speech was one of the few i chose to emblazon into my memory...
and reading thru it just now...it was amazing how my long lost, inner voice sang along with it's beauty

kudos, good chap...i feel greater in the meeting

i second wot exie said, too...one thing i've learned (Burger King, anyone ?) the 1st doth lively dwell here

[Lily Sawyer]

there must be something more we can do, w/o govt intervention, before the tide that turns drowns instead

Boy howdy, your Libertarian roots are showing, and while I agree with you, I think that in the case of tighter gun restrictions, government "interference" will rule.
The NRA lobby isn't comprised solely of Joe Average Gun Owner; it includes gun manufacturers, and that's where the NRA makes its money. I'm sure they'd happily take your money if you want to become a member, but gun owner membership in the organization isn't their bread and butter.

I don't have faith that gun enthusiasts will step up to the plate and self-regulate. They're too busy being worried that their Second Amendment rights will be taken away.

And that's why it will take the government stepping in and drowning the rabid Second Amendment supporters.

I wrote this elsewhere on the web, in defense of Mr. King's essay: requesting gun owners to champion tighter restrictions on guns and responsible gun ownership in the U.S. is the equivalent of asking for authors and writers of any kind to exercise respect, prudence, and integrity while penning their topics. Neither action takes away anyone's First *or* Second Amendment rights.

Too bad the NRA and the more zealous gun owners miss that point 98% of the time.

[guido tkp]

well, i'm not against realistic regulatory measures...but, just like with abortion, i'm just not into the govt banning things because one group doesn't like it...there has to be some middle-ish ground

maybe it is a higher taxes, far more stringent, complete and repetative backround checks, far more restrictive rules on where high powered, non hunting arms may be stored/transported/sold/used...i just don't know

but the idea that we cannot find a solution that allows perfectly intelligent, non violent, non belligerent americans from using these things in some form just because there are wackos in the world would mean we'd have to start banning an awful lot of things, if we are being honest and fair: i don't know for sure, but, i bet cigarettes still casually kill more per year than guns and we haven't really done all that much about that lately, have we ??

i know (have known) dozens of gun owners and hundreds of hunters...i ran a hotel for 10 year and got hunters in w/every season...all were perfectly fine people and none would ever use machine guns to hunt turkeys... but i can see where an individual may want to shoot one.

i am distinctly not a fan of the nra...in fact, i'm of the firm belief that they are one of the the biggest part of the problem today for all the reaons you mentioned, Lil, and more (just the way/why they were founded...and the reasons for such are chilling to freedom and free speech): i think real gun owners, respectful of both the constitution and their neighbors and friends, would be doing a better job of serving thier thoughts and ideas on gun issues by quitting this foul, stenchy organization forthwith...but, like any other advocacy group, they have a function...and i'm not willing to shut them down or shut them out...yet

[GNTLGNT]

i think real gun owners, respectful of both the constitution and their neighbors and friends, would be doing a better job of serving thier thoughts and ideas on gun issues by quitting this foul, stenchy organization forthwith...but, like any other advocacy group, they have a function...and i'm not willing to shut them down or shut them out...yet

...glad to hear it, because as I keep saying....this particular leadership group has strayed wildly from the original concept of the organization....still, I am loathe to drop out, as I hope other level-headed members are...because then I'm afraid complete anarchy would occur at all levels....

[guido tkp]

oh, i agree, gnt...i feel the exact same way about the R party...while i may cross party lines, even frequently, for the best candidate...i keep hoping that by continually having a more reasonable (yeah..right...ME!) voice in the mix...and there are others who feel like i do...that eventually, the idiocy will stop

still..if truth be told...looking at how the more public aspects are being run these days...criminy, at a meeting the other day in Conn., they just heckled the parent of one of the dead children...a grieving father who didn't ask for more regulation/legislation...just enforcing the current ones...

there must be more reasonable voices that can help sculpt a more realistic outcome to this and every dilemma

heck...right now...even obama sounds more concilliatory and rational than any of the loud voices

[Chuggs]

I agree that it is a horrid thing to believe, and would even be more horrid if it were true -- which I DO NOT believe it is -- but its interesting to me that alot of folks take stock in the 9/11 conspirasy -- its even had TV shows that talk about it as if it were viable. An interesting double standard. For the record, I don't believe that either Sandy Hook nor 9/11 are conspiracies. But double standards stand out all the time on many different levels about many different things.